mmmaum 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, g 

TONER COLLECTION. 

| Map. ._TE._3l3_6: 

5Ae//- .LLJT.3 



$ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 




28th Congress, Rep No. 479. Ho. of Reps. 

1st Session. 



ACCIDENT ON STEAM-SHIP "PRINCETON." 



May 15, 1844. 

Read, and laid upon the table, and 2,000 copies extra ordered ttebe-printed. 

Mr. Parmenter, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, made the following 

REPORT: 

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom were rej 'erred certain communi- 
cations from the War and Navy Departments on the subject of large 
wruvght-iron guns, and in pursuance of the duty assigned them by the 
House of Representatives, submit the following report : 

On the 28th day of February last, a large wrought-iron gun exploded 
on board the United States steam ship of war Princeton, under command of 
Captain Robert F. Stockton, by which accident the Hon. Abel P. Upshur, 
Secretary of State, Hon. Thomas W. Gilmer, Secretary of the Navy, Cap- 
tain Beverly Kennon, chief of the Bureau of Construction, Equipment, and 
Repairs, Virgil Maxcy, esq., of Maryland, and Colonel David Gardner, of 
New York, were killed, and from sixteen to twenty other persons were 
wounded; one of them (a servant of the President of the United States) 
mortally. 

This disastrous calamity occurred near the city of Alexandria, while the 
Princeton was on an excursion with many visiters on board. An event so 
appalling, connected with the public service, required an investigation with 
a view to ascerrain to what extent it was one of those accidents, which oc- 
casionally occur beyond the reach of prudent and skillful management; and, 
also, what measures, if any, should be taken by Congress to prevent the 
recurrence of similar disasters. 

The first point which presented itself to the committee was, whether any 
fault existed with those on duty at the time. On application to the Secre- 
tary of the Navy, they have been furnished with a copy of the proceedings 
of the naval court of inquiry, which, with its accompanying papers, is ap- 
pended to this report. In the opinion of the court, no blame is attributa- 
ble to the officers and men on duty at the time. This opinion the committee 
think is fully sustained by the evidence in the case. 

It then became desirable to ascertain if there were any defects in the ma- 
terial, formation, or fabrication of the gun. For that purpose, at the re- 
quest of the committee, on the 23d day of March, the House of Represent- 
atives adopted the following resolution ; the last clause, in relation to the 
expenses, having been added as an amendment by the House : 

" Resolved, That the Secretaries of War and of the Navy each inform this 
House what experiments have been made by officers of their respective 
departments for the purpose of testing the strength and utility of cannon 
manufactured from wrought iron, specifying such particulars as may tend 
Blair & Rives, print. 



.Hi 
2 Rep. No. 479. 

to show the relative strength and utility of wrought iron and casUirori can- 
non ; and that they severally furnish copies of all reports made hy ordnance 
or other officers, either of the War or INavy Departments, which may be in 
their possession, on the subject of this inquiry, and give, such other infor- 
mation connected therewith as they may consider useful ; also, that they 
respectively inform the House, as far as may be in their power, what has 
been the result of the experience cf European powers on the subject, and 
particularly the largest size to which wrought- iron cannon for solid shot 
have been carried with success. 

"And that the Secretaries also report the expenses of said experiments, 
and to whom the money was paid." 

In answer to this resolution, the Secretary of War, on the 6th of April, 
communicated to the House such information as his department possessed, 
relative to its own experiments, and an historical statement of the'experience 
of European powers in wrought iron guns; which reply, with the papers 
referred to, is submitted with this report. 

The Secretary of the Navy transmitted, on the 17th day of April, several 
documents in reply to the resolution of 23d of March, including a statement 
of the proceedings of Captain Stockton in relation to the two large guns 
on board the Princeton, one of which was that which exploded. ~ These 
papers are also appended. 

In answer to inquiries as to the authority by which the guns were pro- 
cured, and what proceedings have been had in regard to them, the com- 
mittee have been furnished with copies of the correspondence on these 
points. The letters are numerous; but, as they principally relate to claims 
for payment, and mode of proving the guns, it is not, thought necessary to 
report them. 

It appears that these large guns were purchased hy Captain Robert F. 
Stockton, without any express order from the Navy Department; and, as far 
as can be learned by the committee, the building of the Princeton, and the 
procurement of her armament, were under his direction. One gun was pro- 
cured from iron works in England, the other from an American establish- 
ment. From all the papers reported to the House, and furnished on the calls 
of the committee, they do not find that any of the proper officers of the Gov- 
ernment had anything to do with the guns, except to direct them to be 
proved, and to agree to the payment of the bills of cost after they were pro- 
cured. Neither do the committee learn that the construction of the Prince- 
ton was supervised by the officers of Government charged with that branch 
of the public service. Everything seems to have been left to Captain 
Stockton, to enable him to carry out his own peculiar views. 

These guns were not ordered, originally, by the advice of the Ordnance 
department of the navy, as would seem to be the proper course — that being 
the branch of the service instituted by law for the regulation of the naval 
armament. Bureaus are established, and scientific officers placed in charge 
of them, for the purpose of enabling the executive department to be possess- 
ed of the means of deciding with the advantage arising (rom the skill and 
attainments of competent officers in the different branches of the public 
service. It was irregular to permit an officer unconnected with the Con- 
duction or Ordnance department to proceed with so little restraint in the 

•Iding and arming of a ship of war, as was the case with regard to the 
"pton. 

°w of the full representations which have been made in relation* to 



Kep. No. 479. 3 

wrought-iron guns, the committee have not thought it necessary to ask for 
authority to visit a distant harbor, or to institute a commission for the pur- 
pose of examining the fragments of the exploded gun, or to obtain any fur- 
ther evidence of the fidelity of its fabrication. The objections in the in- 
formation furnished are made against the material and size of guns of the 
description treated of. 

By other documents communicated with this report, it will be seen tltat, 
on the 14th day of March last, the President of the United States ordered 
another gun of the size and dimensions of that lately destroyed to be made 
"under the direct supervision of Captain Stockton." This gun the com- 
mittee are informed is in a state of forwardness, and, it is supposed, will be 
finished in August next. 

The committee have no disposition to advise an interference with the 
duties of the Executive, by undertaking to prescribe the exact mode of arm- 
ing our public ships. But they feel bound to express the opinion, that an 
unusual species of armament, attended with danger, should not be intro- 
duced into the public service until it receives the full approbation of the 
ordnance officers as to its efficiency and safety. It may also be a question, 
in consideration of their great cost, and the fact that, so far as our navy 
is concerned, they are an experiment, whether these large guns should not 
be specifically directed by Congress before they are procured. 

The committee do not, however, propose any legislation at the present 
session. They trust that the sad event which has given rise to this inves- 
tigation, and the information elicited by this inquiry from intelligent- ord- 
nance officers, will lead to cautious proceedings in a matter of such import- 
ance to the success and reputation of the navy, and one in which the lives 
of those engaged in the public service are so deeply concerned. The com- 
mittee ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. 



Navy Department, March 18, 1844. 
Sir: 1 have the honor to transmit herewith a copy, as requested in your 
letter of the 13th instant, of the report of tiie court of inquiry ordered to 
investigate the causes of the recent disaster on board the United States 
steamship Princeton. 

Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

L. WARRINGTON, 
Secretary of the Navy ad interim. 

Hon. Wm. Parmenter, 

Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, 

Hovse of Representatives. 



By virtue of a precept from the Hon.' Lewis Warrington, Secretary of the 
Navy ad interim, bearing date the filth day of March, in the year eighteen 
hundred and forty four, and hereunto annexed, (marked A.) a naval court 
of inquiry assembled on board the steamship Princeton, lying at anchor in 
the river Potomac, opposite the city of Alex mdria, on Thursday, the seventh 
day of March, eighteen hundred and forty-four, at the hour of 4 o'clock, 
p. m. 



4 Rep. No. 479. 

The said court was constituted as follows : 

President. — Captain William C. Bolton. 

Members. — Captain Isaac McKeever, Captain John H. Aulick. 

Judge Advocate. — Richard S. Coxe. 

The precept having been read, and all the members of the court being 
present, the oath prescribed by law was duly administered to the president 
and members by the judge advocate; and, in like manner, the oath, as pre- 
scribed by law, was duly administered by the president to the judge advo- 
cate. 

The court adjourned to meet tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, at Ful- 
ler's hotel, in the city of Washington. 

Friday, March 8. 

The court met pursuant to the adjournment of yesterday. Present: all 
the members of the court and the judge advocate. The proceedings of 
yesterday were read. 

The judge advocate having requested an opportunity of conferring with 
the Secretary of the Navy on the subject of the court, proceedings were 
suspended for two hours; and, on the return of the judge advocate, the 
court adjourned until to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m., at the same place. 

Saturday morning, March 9, 1844. 

The court met pursuant to the adjournment of yesterday. Present, as 
before. 

The judge advocate presented to the court a note addressed by him to 
Captain Stockton : read and ordered to be annexed to the record, marked 
B; also Captain Stockton's reply, which, with the enclosed letter from Col- 
onel George Bomford, of the Ordnance Department, was also read and or- 
dered to be annexed to the record, (C and D. ) 

Francis B. Ogden, a witness produced by the judge advocate, being duly 
sworn, deposes and says : 

I recollect, some time in the year 1839, to have had a conversation with 
Captain Stockton, then in London, on the practicability of manufacturing 
large guns of wrought iron ; that William Young, then n .anager of the West 
Point loundry, and Captain Ericsson, were also present ; and all agreed that, 
if so large a mass of iron as would be required, could be perfectly welded, 
a gun so constructed, from the superior strength of the material, would pos- 
sess advantages that could be obtained in no other manner. The observa- 
tions 1 had made on the progress of the manufacture of large shafts for 
steamers, and of the great perfection to which it had been carried, (such 
masses of wrought iron having never before been welded together,) induced 
me to believe that the junction could be made perfect; and 1 had no reason 
to suspect that the iron would not retain all its original tenacity. Such also 
was the opinion of Mr. Young and Captain Ericsson. After much delibera- 
tion and several consultations, with accurate calculations before him of the 
relative strength of different materials, Captain Stockton eventually com- 
missioned me to have a wrought-iron gun forged and bored out to carry a 
shot twelve inches in diameter — such dimensions having been agreed on, 
as we were all satisfied would afford sufficient strength, namely : twenty- 



Rep. No. 479. 5 

four inches abaft the trunnions, and tapering thence to eighteen at the muz- 
zle. I contracted with the proprietors of the Mersey works for such a shaft, 
to be forged of tiie best Yorkshire iron — they warranting it to be perfectly 
welded, and without flaw or crack inside or out. On a strict examination 
I was satisfied with the work, and shipped it, unfinished except in the bore, 
to New York, whence I understood it was sent to Philadelphia to have the 
trunnions shrunk on, and to be otherwise fitted for service. I afterwards 
learned that, being proved, it showed some symptoms of weakness, which 
induced Captain Stockton to have other bands, 3^ inches in thickness, 
shrunk on the after part from the trunnion to the breech. In this state, 
the experiments that have been made public, were made with it at Sandy 
Hook; and I was informed that a final trial was made by firing it with a 
charge of 25 lbs. of powder, and shot weighing 212 lbs., forty four times in 
one day — the longitudinal crack abaft the trunnions being so open as to ad- 
mit the escape of smoke from the burnt powder at each discharge, and even 
suffering water to leak through it. With these facts before me, that the 
gun had opened longitudinally, and, of course, had lost all tenacity in that 
part of its original structure, and afterwards depended alone on bands 3£ 
inches thick, I was confirmed in my opinion that wrought iron might be 
split, but could never be rent asunder; and 3^ inches of metal having 
stood such severe trials, that the new gun, with these bands welded upon 
two inches greater diameter than the first one measured, would be perfectly 
safe under any trial. I saw the process of boring the new gun in New 
York, and frequently, in company with Captain Ericsson, examined the 
shavings that were cut out of it; they appeared to be tough, and iron of 
the best quality ; and so satisfied were we with the work, in every particu- 
lar, that neither of us entertained the least doubt of its standing any proof 
it could be subjected to. I was further confirmed in my confidence by the 
severe proof it underwent in New York with 49/^ lbs. of powder, and in 
witnessing its discharge twice on the day the Princeton was first visited by 
the President. I stood immediately behind it, without the least apprehen- 
sion of danger. 

It has been said that such guns have been tried before, and, the experi- 
ment having failed, the project was abandoned. This cannot possibly he 
true; for it is well known that, until very recently, the welding together of 
such a mass of iron was never attempted, in former times, the forging of 
an anchor for a line of battle ship was considered the heaviest job that could 
be executed ; and the demand alone for shafts for targe steamers has brought 
this heavier work into existence — to execute which, entirely new arrange- 
ments are to be made with the fires, hammer, &c. 1 think I do not risk 
anything in the assertion, that the metal of the " Peacemaker" is the largest 
mass that ever was brought under a forge hammer. The shank of an 
anchor will occasionally break short off; but who has ever reasoned from 
this fact, that cast iron would be a better material for an anchor than 
wrought? Who would fire a cast iron musket, or fowling piece, or pistol? 
Who would shoe his horse with cast iron, or indeed ever use it, where te- 
nacity was required, in preference to wrought? No facts, within my knowl- 
edge, have ever been recorded to show that the quality — the nature, 1 may 
say — of wrought iron undergoes such a change, when welded together in 
masses, as it would appear the metal of the bursted gun has undergone. 
The fibrous quality of the iron appears to be wholly destroyed ; large 
crystals form the mass; and the specific gravity is found to be 9 per cent. 



6 Rep. No. 479. 

less than that of ordinary hammered iron. No doubts were entertained as to 
the quality of the bars of iron from which the gun was forged ; it was sup- 
posed to be the very best that could be procured ; if so, some chemical or 
organic change must have taken place in the manufacture, hitherto un-. 
known and undreamed of. 

Those, therefore, who would rely on former experience could have no 
surer guides' than appear to have led to the introduction and use of this gun. 

Question by the Judge Advocate. Will you please to stale particularly 
the knowledge you may possess of the character of Mr. William Young as 
a man of science, and particularly as to his practical acquaintance with the 
manufacture of iron? 

Answer. I have known Mr. Young many years — first as the manager of 
the West Point foundry, and afterwards of the Ulster iron works, and now 
manager of the Mount Savage iron-works, near Frostburg, Allegany coun- 
ty, Maryland. Mis general reputation is. and L have always so considered 
him, as a man of science in his profession, and as possessing the best practi- 
cal knowledge of the manufacture of iron. He has executed large contracts 
with both the War and Navy Departments, and to the entire satisfaction of 
those departments. 

Question by the same. You have spoken of accurate calculations which 
led Captain Stockton to form his judgment and decision as to the construc- 
tion of large guns of wrought iron : what were they? 

Answer. They were, as 1 understood at the time, calculations, I believed, 
made by Captain Ericsson from scientific works on the subject, and from 
his own experience. 

Question by the court. You have mentioned the Yorkshire iron; what is 
the character of that iron ? 

Answer. It is considered the best used in England for tenacity and 
strength, and is much used for steam-engines particularly. I speak of the 
iron made at Low Moor works, from which the iron of which the first jrun 
was made came. But I do not consider that iron as equal to the best Amer- 
ican iron. 

Question. Do you know anything of the character of the works where 
the " Peacemaker" was fabricated ? 

Answer. I do not. 



William E. Hunt, a lieutenant in the navy of the United States, being 
duly sworn, deposes and says: 

Question. Will you please to state such information as you possess as to 
the experiments and proof of the large guns on board the Princeton, and the 
circumstances attending the loading and explosion of the same, and your 
rank and station on board said vessel? 

Answer. Having been, by orders from the Navy Department, detailed for 
special duty under Captain Stockton, in compliance with orders from him,. 
I proceeded to New York; found there a large wrought-iron gun, said to 
have been manufactured in England ; had it conveyed to Sandy Hook for 
the purpose of proving, and making other experiments with it. The gun 
was lauded at the Hook; and upon the arrival of Captain Stockton, all the 
necessary arrangements having been completed, be proceeded to prove the 
gun with the following charge : 35 lbs. powder, 4(1 yards above navy proof, 
a wad filling the chamber; one shot of 212 lbs. in weight, and a wad over 
H. I then proceeded, by order of Captain Stockton, to mount the gun on a 



Rep. No. 479. 7 

carriage prepared for other experiments. On rolling the gun over, a small 
crack opposite was discovered. This was examined, and, although it was 
at the time not supposed to extend through the chamber, it was thought 
advisable to strengthen the breech by putting bands around it. An order 
was given to that effect, and further experiments postponed. After being 
banded, the gun was again mounted and the experiments continued. After 
firing about twenty times with cartridges varying from 14 to 25 lbs., the 
shot of 212 lbs., it was found that the crack in the lower part of the breech 
had opened through into the chamber, to such an extent that in washing the 
gun. water drained through the rent. ]t was then determined to ascertain 
how many discharges of 25 lbs. of powder, with a shot of 212 lbs., the iron 
hoops, which were about 3-^ inches in thickness, would bear without burst- 
ing. On the following day the gun was fired 44 times with 25 lbs. pow- 
der. 28 yards above navy proof, and each shot weighing 212 lbs., without 
any visible effect, except that the exploded powder blackened the outside of 
the hoops directly over the rent in the gun. Having fired from this sun 
from 120 to 150 shot without injury to the hoops, which alone sustained it, 
and having by such means ascertained to our entire satisfaction that a 
wrouoht-iron gun, if over strained, would only open, not fly to pieces, and 
that about 3^ inches of good wrought iron would sustain such firing as this 
gun had been exposed to, we believed that a gun could be made of Ameri- 
can iron sufficiently strong to stand any number of pounds of powder that 
could be burnt in it. In consequence of these results, Captain Stockton or- 
dered another gun made with a similar chamber to that of the first gun, with 
an additional thickness of 12 inches metal at the breech. After this gun 
was made, it was proved with 49-^ lbs. of powder, navy proof, and a shot 
of 212 lbs. This gun was afterwards examined, and found, to all appear- 
ance, to be perfect ; and was pronounced by Captain Stockton, Captain Erics- 
son, myself, and one of the manufacturers, capable of sustaining any charge 
that could be put in her. The gun was then taken on board the Princeton, 
soon after which the Princeton came to this place. A few days before the 
President's first visit to the ship, the ship was got under way, and proceeded 
down the river, for the purpose of firing the forward gun, and seeing all 
was right. One charge of 25 lbs. of powder, and one 30 lbs., with 212 
lbs. shot each, were fired, and the gun thoroughly examined after each dis- 
charge, and found to be, as far as could be seen, quite perfect. Believing that 
the gun could be tested in no other way more satisfactorily, and its strength 
being entirely relied upon, the ship returned to her anchorage. A few days 
afterwards the ship made another excursion down the river, with the Pres- 
ident and other company on board ; on which occasion the forward [gun] was 
loaded and fired three times — once with 30 lbs. powder, and 100 lbs. hollow 
shot, and twice with 25 lbs., and 100 lbs. hollow shot. The gun, as has 
been usual since the commencement of the experiments, examined after eve- 
ry fire, and seemed to be entirely sound. A few days afterwards another 
excursion was made down the river with the members of Congress, and the 
same gun fired three times, with 25-lb. cartridges each time, and 100-lb. 
hollow shot — the gun examined after each discharge, and found still whole 
and entire as before. The ship returned to her anchorage. Several days af 
terwards, (on Wednesday, the 28th February, 1844,) the ship made another 
excursion down the river — the President of the United Slates, and a large 
party of ladies and gentlemen, inviied guests, on board. Upon this occa- 
sion, my orders from Captain Stockton were to have all in readiness to fire 



8 Rep. No. 479. 

the bow gun after passing Alexandria a short distance. The gun was load- 
ed and got ready to tire. I reported the gun ready, when Captain Stockton 
came, forward, taking his usual position" nearest the gun, ordering others 
away, to prevent any accident from recoil of carriage, and fired the gun. 
The gun was examined, and found to be all right as before. The gun was 
fired a second time under similar circumstances, and, as I supposed, for the 
last time that day. After the ship had been put about on her return up the 
river, a request was made by some of the gentlemen on board that the gun 
might be fired again ; which request I had conveyed to Captain Stockton, 
and received from him orders to load the gun as had been done in the two 
previous discharges, viz: with 25 lbs. of powder, and one shot of about 212 
lbs. The gtin was reported ready to fire. Captain Stockton came forward, 
taking his usual position nearest the gun, and in the most exposed place, 
and, with one foot on the bed, gave his usual order: "Stand clear of the 
gun," and fired her; at which fire the gun burst. The sun was loaded in 
this instance in the same manner. as before, viz: a cartridge containing 25 
lbs. of powder was placed in the muzzle of the gun ; a rammer, with a head 
nine inches in diameter, made for the purpose, and marked to show when 
the cartridge was home, was used to slide the cartridge into the after part of 
the chamber of the gun ; Mr. King, the gunner, attending with priming 
wire to report it home, which he did in each instance. A wad ten inches 
in diameter by nine inches long was then placed on the cartridge, and 
rammed home, completely filling the chamber; one round shot weighing 
about 212 pounds was rolled home against the cartridge wad with a ram- 
mer, the head 12 inches in diameter. A wad 12 inches in diameter by 6 
inches long was introduced and rammed home, the rammer marked to show 
when the charge was home. This was the manner of loading in each in- 
stance, with the exception of the last — I myself having introduced the car- 
tridge into the muzzle of the gun ; the same men employed each time in 
loading. 

Everything that was calculated to insure, so far as human skill, prudence, 
and foresight, could secure safety from the firing of these guns, was done by 
Captain Stockton, from the commencement of his experiments up to this 
time. 

Question by Judge Advocate. You speak of the gun being, in your 
opinion, capable of bearing any quantity of powder which could be burned 
in her. Do you mean that, if there is an over-charge of powder, any part 
of it will leave the gun without exploding? 

Ans. I mean that, in such case, powder will be blown from the gun with- 
out being burned. 

Question by the court. At what manufactory was the powder made with 
which the gun was fired on the several occasions you have mentioned ? 

Ans. I believe it was made at Dupont's manufactory, Delaware. 

Q.ues. Are the wads shown to you the same, in class and character, as 
you have spoken of? 

Ans. Yes. 

Q,ues. What is the composition of them, and how are they measured ? 

Ans. They are made of rope-yarn and junk in the ordinary way, passed 
through a former to be adapted to the size of the chamber or calibre of the 
gun ; they are not loaded wads. 

Q,ues. What is the windage of the rammers ? 



Rep. No. 479. 9 

Arts. The smaller rammer an inch, the larger a half inch. The rammer 
before the court is one of them. 

dues. Will you please describe the size of the cartridge and wad employed, 
and whether they are calculated to fill the entire chamber of the gun ? 

Ans. The size of the cartridge of 25 lbs. powder by measurement, when 
settled down in the gun, is twelve inches long, and of the diameter of the 
chamber. The wad formed to cover the cartridge in the chamber, is nine 
inches long by ten in diameter, corresponding with the diameter of the 
chamber. The cartridge and wad are put in separately ; when rammed 
home extending to the bevel of the chamber, about twenty one inches in 
length. The shot can then extend about four inches into the chamber, 
with a 25 or 30 lb. cartridge. The shot would rest against the bevel of the 
chamber. The weight of the shot compressing the wad and cartridge about 
two inches beyond what it was before the shot was inserted. In loading the 
gun, it has been our invariable rule to depress the breech of the gun about 
eight degrees, and also to feel that the shot was fully home, or hear it strike 
the bevel of the gun, before putting in the last wad. A 25 and 30 lb. car- 
tridge, with the small wad over it, completely filled the chamber of the gun, 
with the usual force of two men employed to ram it home. The ball upon 
it then compressed it about two inches. By measurement, on several occa- 
sions, the shot was ascertained, with such charge, lying against the fcevel 
of the chamber. The powder is all in flannel cylinders, each in a separate 
copper cannister, each cannister marked No. 1, 2, or 3. No. I is the charge 
of 30 lbs. ; No. 2, of 25 lbs. ; No. 3, of 14 lbs. The cartridges in general 
of the two first classes ; a few only of the smaller, or third class. The ram- 
mer is graduated* and marked, so as to show when each portion of any and 
every charge has attained its proper position in the gun. 

Q,ues. What was the usual position of the officers and crew of the Prince- 
ton immediately concerned in the firing the gun, and what was their posi- 
tion at the time of the explosion ? 

Ans. In general, the position of the officers and crew was at their quar- 
ters. On this occasion, Captain Stockton stood behind the gun, the nearest 
to it, with his left foot on the bed of the gun. Witness stood alongside 
of Captain Stockton, a little quartering the breech of the gun. Mr. King, 
the gunner, on my left, nenr the larboard trunnion of the gun. Captain 
Stockton, Mr. King, and myself, nearer by several feet to the gun, than any 
other person. Mr. Thomson, the officer of the deck, and the other officers 
generally, attending to the company. 

Q,ues. What was the manner of firing the gun on that occasion? 

Ans. The breech of the gun being at its greatest depression, the lock 
was cocked and set to rolling motion at an elevation of three degrees, the 
lock being self acting ; a cord was then passed around the wheel attached 
to the crank of the elevating screw used for the purpose of imitating the 
rolling 'notion of the ship at sea, and manned. By hauling upon this cord, 
the muzzle of the gun was depressed to the point of elevation at which the 
lock was set, when instantly the cap burned, and the charge exploded. 



Robert S. King, gunner of the Princeton, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says : 

Question. What information can you furnish the court upon the subject 



10 Rep. No. 479. 

of the experiments, proof, and explosion of the large gun on board the 
Princeton ? 

Answer. I assisted Lieutenant Hunt in the experiments at Sandy Hook. 
In regard to the gun which exploded, called the ''Peacemaker," the first 
charge was 14 lbs. of powder, and no ball ; the second, 20 lbs. powder and 
a wad; the third, 25 lbs. powder and a wad; fourth, 45 lbs. powder with 
two wads, and a ball of about 212 lbs. Estimating the powder at navy 
proof, it would be 49 lbs. The gun was afterwards examined by Captain 
Stockton, Captain Ericsson, Mr. Hngg, one of the manufacturers, Mr. Hunt, 
and myself, and no defect, inside or outside, could be discovered. The gun 
was then taken to the navy yard, and placed on board the Princeton. Since 
that time, she has been fired seventeen times up to the time of the explosion — 
five times with solid shot, five times with hollow, and seven times with wad 
only. Every day, after the firing, I washed her out with warm water, and 
after every fire I examined her myself on the outside. After the first fire of 
the gun at Sandy Hook, 1 saw a small scale on die inside of the gun, about 
a foot irom the muzzle, where it is still visible. Mr. Hunt was always very 
particular in loading the gun, and on every occasion personally superim 
tended it. The last loading of the gun, he himself put the powder in the 
gun. I was always at the priming wire. After the filth or sixth firing' of 
the gyn, Captain Stockton assisted himself, and marked the rammer. The 
cartridge was always carried home with the rammer; a wad of 10 inches 
placed in the chamber, and that rammed home; the ball put in the muzzle, 
rolled home; and, by the priming-wire, it could be perceived that it com- 
pressed the powder. I do not think the gun has been fired at a less 
elevation than three degrees. The powder was all weighed and placed 
in the cartridges and cannisters. I also superintended some of the exper- 
iments with the first of the large guns, but they had nearly concluded be- 
fore I reached Sandy Hook, August 11th, 1843. At the Hook I find the 
fir>tgun, (the Oregon.) Prior to my going there, she had been fired, and 
1 discovered that water ran through her. I fired her twice with charges of 
25 lbs. powder, and ball of 212 lbs. ; once with 14 lbs. powder, and ball. 
On examination, it was found that no change had been produced by this 
firing. This was, 1 believe, the last of her firing. 

The " Peacemaker" was made at the foundry of Mr. Ward, in New 
York. 



Hugh Kelly, quarter-gunner on board the Princeton, being duly sworn, 
says : 

Ques. Were you at Sandy Hook when the experiments and trials of the 
" Oregon " and " Peacemaker " were made ? If so, state what was your duty. 

Ans. 1 was there as foremast hand ; was connected with the loading of 
the gun, and to the washing and attending to the gun. In washing the 
" Oregon," the crack was discovered — the water running through. Bands 
were put round the gun, and the experiments continued, and I perceived 
no change in the gun, or in the crack in it, during the subsequent firing. I 
assisted in loading the gun, putting in the shot, on the day of the ex- 
pldsion ; the loading was done in a perfect way ; never saw more care 
taken. 1 had assisted in loading her about twelve times. 



Rep. No. 479. 11 

Edward Parker, fireman on board the Princeton, sworn and deposes : 

dues. Were von at Sandy Hook when the experiments and trials were 
made on the "Oregon/' and "Peacemaker;" and have you since been on 
board the Princeton ? 

Ans. Yes. 

Q,ues. What was your duty at Sandy Hook ? 

Ans. I was at the elevating screw at the first fire; the gun was on the 
sand, not on a carriage'; the charge was 35 pounds powder, as I under- 
stood, and a solid shot. After the fire, examined the gun, and found a 
crack. We then mounted her on a carriage, and fired, I think, three rounds 
with 14 pounds powder, and solid shot ; no change was perceived. The 
firing then stopped, and bands of I believe 3| inches thickness were put on 
her. After the hands were put on, we continued our firing, and fired I 
should think, at different times. 150 shot — sometimes 15 or 20 a day, and in 
rapid succession. Saw no change in the gun or the crack, and felt under 
no apprehension. The charges ranged from 14 to 25 pounds. 



James Granger, a seaman on board the Princeton, being duly sworn, 
says : 

Clues. Were you on board the Princeton, and did you assist in loading 
the gun which burst? 

Ans. Yes. 

dues. State whether the loading was as usual, and was it carefully at- 
tended to, and by whom? 

Ans. 1 assisted in loading the gun from the time she was taken on board. 
She was always carefully loaded, and on the last occasion as carefully as I 
had ever known her. Harrington assisted in the loading. Mr. Hunt su- 
perintended and directed everything, and every order that he gave was 
carefully performed. 



David Harrington, seaman on board the Princeton, being duly sworn, 
says : 

Q,ues. Were you on board the Princeton on the day of the explosion of 
the large gun? Did you assist in the loading? State what you know. 

Ans. Was on board ; assisted in the loading; assisted in loading the gun 
on every occasion but two, from the time it was taken on board ; great 
care and attention was always given to the loading; on the last occasion 
every care was taken, and I particularly, after the ramming down of the 
charge, rammed it again myself, to be perfectly sure that everything was 
right. Granger assisted in the loading. Mr. King, the gunner, was at the 
priming wire, and reported it was home. Mr. Hunt superintended, and 
ordered everything relating to the loading. 



Captain W. C. Bolton, president of the court, being duly sworn, says: 
Clues. Were you on board the Princeton at the time of the explosion of 
the large gun ? What did you observe as to the conduct of Captain Stock- 
ton, the officers and crew of the Princeton ? 



12 Rep. No. 479. 

Ans. I was on board the Princeton on that occasion, as one of the invited 
guests. I considered the conduct of the captain, officers, and crew, under 
such appalling circumstances, highly praiseworthy and meritorious — es- 
pecially that of Lieutenant Thomson, who came more immediately and 
constantly under my observation, he being officer of the deck for the day. 
I happened to be the senior naval officer on board and on deck when the 
explosion occurred. I saw Captain Stockton some twenty minutes after 
he was carried below, for the first time after the explosion ; he was ap- 
parently much injured, and suffering great pain. Before the ship anchored 
I saw him a second time, and spoke cheeringly and soothingly to him. He 
appeared self possessed and much composed, and I considered him as per- 
fectly competent to give any orders. 

The testimony being now closed, the court proceeded to take the same 
into consideration, and to deliberate upon the opinion which, by the pre- 
cept, they were required to report. 



REPORT. 

The naval court of inquiry, convened by order of the Secretary of the 
Navy, by a precept under his hand, bearing date the (9th day of March in- 
stant, for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of Captain Robert F. 
Stockton and officers, in relation to the experiments and proofs which pre- 
ceded the construction, and the proof and subsequent explosion of one of 
the great guns of the Princeton, occasioning the awful and distressing ca- 
tastrophe which has recently occurred on board the said ship, and to report 
the opinion of said court on the matters thus referred to it — respectfully sub- 
mit to the consideration of the honorable the Secretary of the Navy, the 
evidence which has been laid before it in relation to the premises. 

In further performance of the duty imposed on it, the court further re- 
spectfully report, that, in pursuing the investigation with which it has been 
charged, the court was limited to the facts and circumstances immediately 
connected with the captain and officers of the Princeton, anterior to and 
immediately attending the explosion of one of the large guns on board 
that vessel on the 28th February last. This investigation has satisfied the 
court — 

1. That in the year 1839, Captain Stockton being in England, his at- 
tention was attracted to the extraordinary and important improvements 
which had recently been introduced into the manufacture of large masses 
of wrought iron, as a substitute for cast iron, for objects which required a 
combination of strength and adhesiveness or toughness. Large shafts for 
steam-engines had been thus fabricated, which experience has demonstrated 
to be superior, in those qualities which were desirable, to the same articles 
manufactured of cast iron. 

These circumstances appear to have led Captain Stockton to consider the 
question how far the same material might be employed in the construction 
of cannon of a large calibre. He appears to have been animated by mo- 
tives the most patriotic — stimulated by the laudable desire of being himself 
instrumental in promoting the honor of his country, and of elevating that 
branch of the service with which he was personally connected. To what 
extent his inquiries were carried, the court has not been advised ; but it is 
in evidence that he did advise and consult with three gentlemen possessing, 



Rep. No. 479. 13 

from their scientific acquirements and practical experience on such subjects, 
very superior qualifications in questions of this character, and whose opin- 
ions were entitled to high respect. Mr. William Young, Captain Ericsson, 
and Francis B. Ogden, esquire, are the gentlemen to whom allusion is made. 
After much deliberation and several consultations, with calculations fur- 
nished from the same quarter, Captain Stockton determined upon the con- 
struction of a gun of the proposed dimensions, for the purpose of testing 
the opinions of scientific men by the results of expeiience. A cannon was 
accordingly made at the Mersey works, of Yorkshire iron, which, being 
approved of, was shipped to the United States. Having been properly pre- 
pared for the purpose, this gun was carried to Sandy Hook, and subjected 
to what was deemed the proper test. After the first firing, preparations 
were made to mount the gun ; in doing this, a crack was perceived opposite 
the chamber, which induced Captain Stockton to have the breech strength- 
ened by putting bands around it. These bands are represented as being Sc- 
inches in thickness. With this additional strength given to the defective 
part of the gun, the experiments were renewed, and the result was a deci- 
ded conviction upon the minds of all connected with them, that, in general, 
the anticipations of Captain Stockton were perfectly realized; and, secondly, 
that if a gun of this construction should yield to the force of the trial, it 
would be by a simple opening, and not, as in cast iron, a violent disruption 
and scattering of the fragments. The success of these experiments was 
such as to decide Captain Stockton forthwith to direct the construction of 
another gun of a similar character, to be made of American iron, which is 
usually regarded as superior in strength and tenacity to the English iron. 
This second gun (the same which exploded on board the Princeton) was con- 
structed with a chamber similar to that of the firs^ gun, with an additional 
thickness of 12 inches at the breech — a difference (even if the metal were 
only of equal goodness) far more than sufficient to compensate for the bands 
by which the first had been fortified. 

Application was made to Colonel Bomford, of the Ordnance department 
of the army, who, it is well known, has been professionally occupied in ex- 
perimenting upon guns of a large calibre, and his opinion requested as to 
the proper proof to which such a gun ought to be subjected. The proof 
suggested by Colonel Bomford as a suitable one will be found in his letter 
of November 25, 1840, appended to the record. The new gun constructed 
by order of Captain Stockton exceeded in dimension and weight, conse- 
quently should also have surpassed in strength, that contemplated by Colo- 
nel Bomford ; they being of the same calibre, and the proof to which this 
cannon was subjected was much more severe than what was proposed as 
sufficient by that experienced officer. 

In view of all the circumstances thus briefly adverted to, but minutely 
detailed in the evidence which is spread upon the record, the court enter- 
tains a distinct and confident opinion, that, in originally forming the plan 
for the construction of large guns, Captain Stockton proceeded on well es- 
tablished practical facts ; that in coming to a decision upon the feasibility 
of the contemplated project, he did not rely upon his own theoretical opin- 
ions, but resorted to men of science and practical skill for advice, and that 
he was fully sustained by their judgment in every particular ; that a series 
of experiments and trials with the two guns fully sustained the deductions 
of the gentlemen whose advice was sought, and justified the most assure! 
confidence in the durability and efficiency of the gun. 



14 Rep. No. 479. 

In regard to the mode of loading and firing on every occasion, and em- 
phatically that which was followed by the explosion, it is established by the 
fullest proof, to the entire sati>faction of the court, that every care and at- 
tention which prudence and professional capacity could dictate was ob- 
served. JNo shadow of censure, in this respect, can be attached to any 
officer or any of the crew of the Princeton. 

In regard to the conduct and deportment of the captain and officers of the 
Princeton on the occasion of the deplorable catastrophe which occurred on 
the 28th of February last, the court feels itself bound to express its opinion 
that, in all respects, they were such as were to be expected from gallant and 
well trained officers sustaining their own personal character, and that of the 
service, marked with the most perfect order, subordination, and steadi- 
ness. 

In conclusion, the court is also decidedly of opinion, that not only was 
every precaution taken which skill, regulated by prudence, and animated by 
the loftiest motives, could devise to guard against accident, but that Captain 
Stockton, Lieutenant Hunt, and Mr. King," the gunner, who had attended 
to and directed all the experiments and trials of these guns, exhibited only 
a due confidence in what they had witnessed, in placing themselves on 
every occasion, and particularly on that of the explosion, almost in contact 
with the gun, and in a position apparently not only more dangerous than 
any other, but that which might rationally have been deemed the only peril- 
ous situation on board the vessel. 

The court, having thus completed its business, adjourned sine die. 

March 11, 1844. 



Richard S. Coxe, Judge Advocate. 



W. C. BOLTON, President 



A. 

Captain Robert F. Stockton having submitted to the President a request 
that a judicial inquiry may be instituted into the conduct of himself and 
officers in relation to the experiments and proofs which preceded the con- 
struction, and the proof and subsequent explosion of one of the great guns 
of the Princeton, occasioning the awful and distressing catastrophe which 
has recently occurred on board the said ship, the President, although he 
entertains the most perfect confidence that no censure can, with any show 
of justice, be imputed to either of the parties, yet has deemed it an act of 
justice to Captain Stockton to yield to his request. A naval court of in- 
quiry is accordingly ordered to convene on board the Princeton, on Thurs- 
day, the 7th instant, at 4 p. m., with power, if necessary, to adjourn to 
some fitting place in her vicinity, for the purpose of investigating and ascer- 
taining the facts in regard to the premises, and to report the opinion of said 
court on the matters thus referred to it. The said court will be constituted 
as follows : 

President — Captain William C. Bolton. 

Members — Captain Isaac McKeever, and Captain John H. Aulick. 

Judge Advocate — Richard S. Coxe, esq. 
By order of the President. 

L. WARRINGTON, 
Secretary of the Navy ad interim. 

Navy Department, March 6, 1844. 



Rep. No. 479. 15 

B. 

Fuller's Hotel, March 8, 1844. 

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that ;i naval court of inquiry, con- 
vened at your request, by order of the President of the United Slates, is now 
in session at tins place, and will to morrow morning at 10 o'clock proceed 
to examine testimony in regard to the experiments and proofs, and the 
circumstances attending the explosion of one of the great guns of the 
Princeton. 

The court will either receive any communication which you may ad- 
dress to it on the subject, or, if you prefer to give your view in person or by 
counsel, will hear you orally. 

Very respectfully, yours, &c., 

RICH. S. COXE, 

Judge Advocate. 
Captain Robert F. Stockton, U. S. navy. 



C. 

Gadsby's Hotel, Washington, D. C, 

Friday, March 8, 1844, 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this day's date, 
informing me that a court of inquiry has been organized at my request, to 
examine into my conduct in relation to the big guns of the Princeton, and 
the explosion of one of them on the 28th of February ; and requesting to 
know whether I could attend in person, and, if not, by whom 1 desired to 
be represented ; and whether I had any testimony or other matter to lay 
before the court. 1 regret to inform you that 1 am not able to attend the 
court in person, having not yet recovered from my wounds; and I should 
not have thought it necessary to have deputed any one to represent me, 
particularly, during the inquiry, but for the suggestion in your letter. I de- 
sire Mr. John R. Thomson, of New Jersey, may be permitted to act as my 
counsel in the matter before the court. 

As the great object of the inquiry is to determine how much of skill and 
prudence has been displayed, or neglected, in the design and proof of the 
big guns, I desire most earnestly that every act of mine in relation thereto, 
from the first moment that 1 suggested the plan of the guns up to this time, 
may be spread upon the record of the court, without regard to any tech- 
nical niceties. Having been informed that the officers and crew of the 
Princeton were mustered by order of the president of the court, and all 
those who know anything with regard to the matter have been ordered to 
attend as witnesses, I have no witnesses from the ship to name. But I wish 
to prove before the court that my experiments, with regard to the big guns, 
were not carried on, vainly relying upon my own knowledge and expe- 
rience alone, but that, from the commencement to this time, I have been 
governed by the best lights afforded by the experience of others and the 
mechanic arts, as well as the advice and opinion of most scientific persons. 
For which purpose I desire that Mr. Francis B. Ogden, who I understand 
is accidentally in the city, may be examined, and that the enclosed letter 



16 Rep. No. 479. 

from Colonel Bomford may be admitted as evidence upon the record of the 
court. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

R. F. STOCKTON. 
Richard S. Coxe, Esq., Judge Advocate. 



D. 

Washington, November 25, 1840. 
Dear Sir: I hasten to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 19th 
instant, and will furnish the answer with great pleasure as soon as time 
will admit ; for the present, I must rely in degree on memory, and confine 
myself to a few condensed notes, which I hope will prove acceptable. 

The weight and general dimensions of two ten inch (Columbiads) or 
chambered cannon, lately proved at South Boston, Massachusetts : 









No. 1, heavy. 


No. 2, light. 


Weight - 


- 


- 


- 17,600 lbs. 


10,300 lbs. 


To be reduced to 


- 


- 


- 15,000 » 


10,000 » 


. Charge, full chamber 


- 


- 


18 " 


12 « 


Length from breech bci 


Hid to 


muzzle 


106 inches. 


106 inches. 


Of chamber 


- 


- 


121 « 


n " 


Of cone or slope 


- 


. 


5 « 


5 « 


Diameter of base ring 


- 


- 


34f « 


28f « 


End of reinforce 


- 


- 


29 » 


23f «< 


Beginning of chase 


- 


- 


27£ « 


22* « 


Of chamber 


- 


- 


7£ << 


7 " 


Plane of muzzle 


- 


- 


18 « 


14£ « 



Gun No. 1 was proved with 22^ lbs. of gunpowder and one round shot ; 
affain with 18 lbs. of powder and one elongated shell, and ten rounds with 
18 lbs. of powder and one spherical shell. 

Gun No. 2 was proved with 15 lbs. and one solid shot; 2d, with 12 lbs. 
and one elongated shell; 3d, with 3 rounds of 12 lbs. of powder and one 
solid shot, and ten rounds of 12 lbs. of powder and one shell. 

Subsequently, No. 1 has been fired 150 rounds with 18 lbs. of powder 
and one spherical shell ; and No. 2, 50 rounds with 12 lbs. of powder and 
one spherical shell. 

Note. — The solid shot weighed 125 lbs. each, and the spherical shells 
from 86 to 100 lbs.; the latter weight being required to insure the retention 
of the spherical form of the shell, the certainty of action and preservation 
of the fuse, and greater accuracy and uniformity of range. 

The shot and shells were attached to a sabot or wooden bottom, the 
range or proof of the gunpowder 300 yards, and the weight of elongated 
shell 168 lbs. 

Not being informed in relation to the weight and dimensions of your 12- 
inch gun, 1 cannot, of course, form an opinion in regard to the necessary 
proof; but with a 12 inch, which 1 designed in the proportions of No. 2, 
say 8 calibres in the bore, the relative proof would be, (the gun weighing 
20,000 lbs :) 



Rep. No. 479. 17 

1st. 30 lbs. of powder and one round shot, weight about 220 lbs. 

2d. 24 lbs. of powder and one elongated shell, weight about 270 lbs. 

3d. 24 lbs. of powder (3 rounds) and one solid shot, weight about 210 lbs. 

4th. 24 lbs. of powder (10 rounds) and one spherical shell, weight about 
170 lbs. 

Diameter of chamber, from 8 to 8^ inches, to contain a charge of 24 lbs. 
of gunpowder. 

Wishing you every success in your experiments, which I deem of great 
importance, I remain, very respectfully, 

G. BOMFORD. 

Note. — The greatest range of gun No. 1 was at 35°, time of flight 28", 
range 5,300 yards. 

The greatest range of gun No. 2 was at 38°, time of flight 25", range 
4,400 yards. 

No. 1 charge of powder, full chamber, 18 lbs. No. 2 charge of powder, 
12 lbs., full chamber. 

Captain R. F. Stockton, U. S. navy, 

Princeton, N. J. 



War Department, April 6, 1844. » 
Sir : In answer to so much of a resolution of the House of Represen- 
tatives of the United States, of the 23d ultimo, as refers to this department, 
and requires the Secretary of War to inform the House what experiments 
have been made by officers under the direction of the department, for the 
purpose of testing the strength and utility of cannon manufactured from 
wrought iron, &c., 1 respectfully transmit, herewith, a report of the officer 
in charge of the Ordnance Bureau, to whom the resolution had been re- 
ferred. 

It is believed the report embraces all the information required, so far as 
it can now be furnished by this department. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. WILKINS, 

Secretary of War. 
Hon. J. W. Jones, 

Speaker of the Home of Representatives. 



Ordnance Office, 
Washington, April 5, 1844. 
Sir : In reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives, calling 
for information as to what experiments have been made by officers of the 
War Department, for the purpose of testing the strength and utility of can- 
non manufactured from wrought iron ; specifying such particulars as may 
tend to show the relative strength and utility of wrought and cast iron can- 
non; together with copies of all reports from ordnance or other officers 
on this subject, and such other information connected therewith as may be 
considered useful ; as also the experience of European powers on this sub- 
ject, and particularly the largest size to which wrought iron cannon for 
solid shot have been carried with success ; and likewise the expenses of the 
experiments, and to whom the money was paid, — I have the honor to report 
2 



18 Rep. No. 479. 

That the only experiments for the purpose of testing wrought-iron gnns, 
recorded as having been made by this department, are the trial of two 
6 • pounder guns at Washington and Watervleit arsenals in 1832, and the 
experiment now in progress, but not completed, at Fort Monroe arsenal, 
with some guns of the same calibre. 

In the experiment at Watervleit arsenal, the gun was fired twice with a 
proof charge, and forty times with service charges. 

The band which held the trunnions slipped off at the 18th fire, and the 
firing had to be stopped to replace it. After firing the forty two rounds, the 
gun remained serviceable, but the enlargement of the bore was found to be 
as much as .04 inch, which is more than double that of the bronze guns now 
made. This enlargement of the bore is the greatest objection to bronze ar- 
tillery, and would soon render a gun unserviceable ; and, so far as this ex- 
periment goes, it tends to prove that wrought iron has no advantage over 
bronze in this respect, and consequently no greater durability. The par- 
ticulars of this experiment, and of the mode of manufacture pursued in this 
instance, will be found in the report of Major Talcott, and the accompany- 
ing statement of the manufacturer, copies of which are enclosed herewith. 

The trial at Washington arsenal consisted only in firing proof charges, 
which left the bore of the piece in a condition unfit for service, by opening 
the seams or welds. 

By direction of the Secretary of War, some 6 pounder guns have been 
"manufactured, in 1843, according to a new method, which is not divulged, 
at the same price as bronze guns, and promising to unite the advantages of 
wrought with those of cast iron. These guns are now at Fort Monroe ar- 
senal, where experiments to test their strength and durability are in pro- 
gress. They are not, however, completed ; and although, of those tried, one 
failed at the 150th fire, by the trunnion band becoming loose, and another 
at the 450th fire, by the opening of the welds, the results, so far, are not suf- 
ficient to warrant a definite conclusion as to the merits of this mode of 
fabrication. 

So far as it has been tested by this department, wrought iron has not 
proved a good material for the manufacture of field guns; and as the diffi- 
culty of fabrication increases with a greater quantity of metal, it is less suit- 
able for those of larger calibre. The greatest objection, and apparently an 
insurmountable one, is the difficulty of welding the parts together perfectly, 
and the still greater difficulty or impossibility of ascertaining whether the 
welds are perfect or not. Besides, the effect of heating is to render the iron 
more porous, and of less specific gravity and tenacity; and, when often re- 
peated, is known to destroy the good qualities of the best refined iron. 
When the bars are of small size, as in gun barrels, the hammering com- 
presses and re-unites the particles, and corrects these defects ; but in large 
masses, the effects of the hammer do not reach the interior of the mass, 
which is consequently left open and spongy, although the metal on the stir- 
face, and to a slight depth, is compact and fihrous. 

The objects attempted to be gained by the use of wrought iron for can- 
non are — 1st, lightness ; and, 2d, strength. 

1st. Reasoning from the successful use of that material for small arms, 
it has been supposed that a careful and skillful fabrication would effect these 
results. But lightness below a certain ratio is not desirable, it is positively 
injurious ; for light guns can be used only with light charges. Field guns 
cannot be conveniently served when they have less than 150 lbs. of metal 



Rep. No. 479. 19 

to each pound of the shot, and battering guns require at least 200 lbs. of 
metal to each pound of the shot. With any less weight, the service of the 
gun is very difficult, from its excessive recoil ; therefore, lightness is not a 
desirable point in the construction of cannon. 

2d. Strength. As this is always desirable, it should be effected if possi- 
ble, but not at the expense of any other important point. If it were possible 
to fabricate sound and strong guns of wrought iron, they would be found defi- 
cient in hardness. The projectiles used are of cast iron, a material much 
harder than wrought iron ; consequently, the wrought- iron gun is soon in- 
dented and worn, so much as to prevent all accuracy in firing, and it then 
is worth little or nothing. 

Leaden balls are used in small arms ; but they are inadmissible in cannon, 
as the great he.it of the exploded gunpowder melts the lead more or less, 
and changes the form of the ball, thereby reducing its range; besides, lead 
has not sufficient tenacity to enter hard substances, and therefore is not a 
suitable material to be used against ships and batteries. Wrought iron is 
also more liable to injury from rust, than bronze or cast iron ; and the small- 
est crack admitting moisture would, of itself, in time, seriously injure the 
gun. The first cost of wrought iron cannon is the same as that of bronze, 
and more than six times that of cast iron. Bronze guns, it may be further 
remarked, after being too much worn for service, can be easily recast ; 
whereas the old wrought iron is useless for refabrication, and of little value 
in such large masses for any purpose. 

In regard to the experience of European powers on this subject, it may 
be stated, generally, that the use of wrought iron as a material for cannon 
has been attempted in Europe repeatedly, without success, from the inven- 
tion of fire-arms to this time. The cannon of small size have succeeded 
better than larger ones ; indeed, there is no known record of a wrought- 
iron gun for heavy shot proving satisfactory. The works of European 
writers on artillery abound in notices of wrought-iron cannon, of dates of 
manufacture extending back from the present century to the remotest pe- 
riods of their use. 

Frequent instances of accidents from their bursting are mentioned, and 
they have never been successfully manufactured on a large scale. Meyer, 
in his work entitled "Experiments in the Fabrication and Durability of 
Cannon, both Iron and Bronze," edition of 1834, says: "It is certain no 
experiment in artillery has been as often unsuccessfully repeated and aban- 
doned as the fabrication of wrought iron cannon ; and even at this time we 
are but little further advanced in it than at the beginning ;" and Gassendi, 
in his " Aide-Memoire d'Artillerie," edition of 1819, condemns the use of 
wrought iron for the manufacture of cannon entirely. 

Herewith are submitted extracts from different writers, containing a 
chronological history of wrought-iron cannon, and remarks on the use of 
this material for their fabrication. 

In regard to "the relative strength and utility of wrought and cast-iron 
cannon," the former having been already noticed, it may be stated in refer- 
ence to the latter — 

1st. As to the strength. Cast iron is of so many different qualities and 
kinds, and so variously affected by different modes of fabrication, that it is 
impossible to speak of the strength of cast iron guns generally. It is known, 
however, that, by careful attention to the selection of the metal, to its treat- 
ment in the furnace, to its proper distribution throughout the body of the 



20 Rep. No. 479. 

gun in relation to the force exerted on its different parts by the discharge., 
to its gradual cooling after being run into the moulds, — in a word, to all the 
manipulations connected with its manufacture ; and by a judicious, mode- 
rate proof, serving to detect any flaws or imperfections which may have 
escaped observation during the manufacture, and not so severe as to strain 
or weaken the cohesion of the particles, cast-iron guns, sufficiently light 
for siege, seacoast, and garrison service, may be made, the use of which, 
with full charges, will be safe for at least 1,000 fires. But although the 
practicability of making good and safe guns of cast iron is believed to be an 
established point, it must be admitted that it requires a constant supervision 
and vigilance, which can only be obtained by means of a foundry under 
the entire control of the Government, or the employment of a skillful prac- 
tical officer to attend at the private foundries during the whole process of 
fabrication. 

2d. As to utility. In former times it was supposed that bronze only was 
suited for heavy guns, both on sea and land ; and it was only after great 
advances had been made in the arts, that the maritime powers of Europe 
ventured to use cast iron guns on board their ships. The less cost and 
greater hardness of cast iron, therefore, have led to its use for artillery ; and 
when it is considered that six or seven cannon of this material can be pro- 
cured for the same cost as one of bronze or wrought iron, it will readily be 
perceived that, if we can fabricate them in such a manner as to render them 
safe for only one thousand fires, they should be adopted on the score of 
economy, and their accuracy of fire up to the period of their being laid 
aside; accordingly, all the European powers have fabricated their heavy 
guns, for ships and batteries, of this material — using bronze only for field 
and siege trains. 

The British troops, in the Peninsula war, on several occasions found 
their siege trains of bronze speedily rendered unserviceable, and resorted to 
cast-iron guns; the superiority of which, over bronze, consisted in their 
greater accuracy, and being less heated in rapid firing; and they are stated 
to have endured 2,700 discharges. " These pieces had preserved such accu- 
racy of fire, that in the last days of the sieges they were fired from a great 
distance over the heads of the besiegers at the breach, with sufficient preci- 
sion to reach the besieged behind a high rampart." 

The expenses of the experiments in wrought iron cannon made at Water- 
vliet and Washington arsenals, consist only of the cost of the ammunition 
used in firing them, which was taken from that on hand at those arsenals. 
Nothing was paid for the guns. For the experiments now in progress at 
Fort Monroe arsenal, the expenses consist of the cost of the necessary am- 
munition prepared at the arsenal, and the price of the guns, ($2,100,) 
which has been paid to the manufacturer, Mr. Daniel Treadwell, of Massa- 
chusetts. 

The resolution of the House of Representatives is herewith returned. 
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

G. TALCOTT, 
Lieutenant Colonel Ordnance. 

Hen. William Wilkins, 

Secretary of War. 



Rep. No. 479. 21 

Watervliet Arsenal, May 24, 1832. 

Sir: Mr. Reuben Hunt, of Canaan, Litchfield county, Connecticut, has 
brought to this post a wrought-iron 6 pounder cannon, a drawing of which 
is enclosed herewith, together with a description of the mode of manufac- 
turing the same. As it appeared by your letters of 22d August aud 7th 
November last, which have been shown to me, that you were desirous of 
having his work tested and proved, and fie not having the means of fully 
proving the gun, I have deemed it an object of sufficient importance to the 
Government to warrant my proceeding to prove and try it, without specific 
orders upon the subject. 

The gun appears to be sound in the bore ; some small flaws in the welding 
are perceptible, but no cavities of sufficient depth to injure it materially. It 
is not very smoothly bored, nor is it of the proper calibre; all which errors 
are believed to be within the reach of correction when the manufacture is 
undertaken on a proper scale, and with suitable tools. The exterior ap- 
pears perfectly sound and smooth. 

It was proved twice with 4 pounds of powder, (old powder, the best we 
have,) giving a rano-e of about 250 yards, with the new eprouvette, two 
shots, and two wads, and was then fired 40 rounds with 1^ pound of 
powder, one shot, and one wad. At the 18th round, the gun slipped out 
of its trunnions, and it was then discovered that the band into which the 
trunnions were welded was put on very imperfectly, hardly touching the 
body of the gun, except at its upper and lower edges. A new band was made, 
and put on carefully; after which, the other 22 rounds were fired, without 
effecting any perceptible change; and it is believed that the gun, in its present 
condition, would stand service. Annexed to the drawing is a statement of 
the diameter of the bore before proof, and also its condition after all the firing 
was finished, by which it appears that a sm 11 increase or expansion has 
taken place. The iron seems to be of good quality, tolerably bard for forged 
iron, and the inequalities of the shot have made very little impression upon 
the bore — nothing like the effects that would be produced upon a brass gun 
subjected to the same trial.* 

The gun remains here, subject to your orders. The expense of removing 
the band and trunnions, including labor, coals, and iron, was $21 22, which 
amount will be chargeable to Mr. Hunt, unless you should authorize the 
expenditure. 

Very respectfully, lam, sir, your obedient servant, 

GEO. TALCOTT, Bt. Major, $• c. 

Colonel G. Bomford, 

Ordnance Office, Washington. 



♦The comparative effects on the bore, here noticed, ref^r to the bronze artillery, manufac- 
tured prior lo 1832, the date of the report ; subsequent improvements in the manufacture of 
bronze guns have increased their hardness and durability; and it is with guns of the present 
fabrication that the comparison in the report of this date is made. 

G. TALCOTT, U. Col. Ordnance. 

Ordnance Office, April 5, 1844. 



22 Rep. No. 479. 

Method of manufacturing rvrought-iron cannon by R. fy S. Hunt, of Ca- 
naan, Litchfield county, Connecticut, in pursuance of a plan projected 
by their father, S. Hunt, as follows: 

Take a piece of the best bloomed iron, made from wrought scraps, of 
such weight and size as will make a centre pin of such length as the size 
of the gun may require, and of such size as the calibre may require, so that 
there may be always three-fourths to one inch of the exiernal surface of the 
piece left after boring, (as the gun is to be bored out of a solid mass.) 
The pin, as it is termed, may be either square or round, as may be most 
convenient to work. Then begin at any suitable place on the pm to weld 
on bars or pieces of the best wrought iron, rouudways, till it acquires a 
suitable size with reference to the size of the gun; in this last operation 
great care should be taken to have good heats, and that no impurities get 
in to make imperfect places in the work, and thus form one solid mass of 
iron. It is then turned on (he outside into any shape or fashion which 
may be desired, and bored out; thus forming a perfect wrought iron cylin- 
der in its internal appearance, and the shape of a cannon on the outside, 
having for its internal surface the grain of the iron lengthways, and its ex- 
ternal surface the grain of the iron running roundways. A variety of ways 
may be pursued to fix on the trunnions — such as welding them on in the 
formation of the outside of the grim ; or having them formed with a band,, 
and shrunk on ; or put on cold in two semi-circles; or they may be cast on, 
either of iron or brass, though the cast metal is considered of doubtful 
strength. 

The gun offered for inspection was made at the same establishment, and 
of the same materials as the anchors, well known in the navy as having 
been made by Russell Hunt & Brother. 

REUBEN HUNT. 



From Meyer's Historical Manual of the Technology of Fire Arms, from 
their invention to the present time. Paris edition of 1837. 

According to Vassins, the Chinese had, in the year 1055, cannon of bronze 
and wrought iron, which were worked with much skill. 

A wrought iron cannon was found in the ruins of the castle TJf Huger 
on the Rhine, which castle was destroyed in the year 1 308. 

In the year 1333, the Teutonic order had three bombards of wrought 
iron. 

At the siege of Eu, in 1340, the English had large wrought-iron pieces, 
with which they threw round stones. 

According to Villani, the English, in 1345, had wrought iron eannon be- 
fore Monsegur. Darriel says that there are indications of the existence of 
wrought iron cannon and of powder at Toulouse at this time. 

Siege of Claudia Fossa by the Venitians in 1366. Ligurius, speaking of 
this siege, says that some Germans came with two small wrought-iron pieces, 
firing leaden balls, which they offered to the Venitians, and that they used 
them with great advantage. 

Description of the bombard by Rednsius in 1427. It is of wrought-iron,. 
and is composed of a straight bore behind^ which widens like a funnel to- 



Rep. No 479. 23 

wards the mouth ; the forward or funnel-shaped part is eight calibres 
long, the rear part sixteen. In the straight part of the bore is placed an 
artificial mixture of saltpetre, of sulphur, and charcoal; the entrance is 
closed with a wooden tompion, on which, in the widened part of the bore, 
the stone bullet rests. This mixture is fired by means of a small aperture 
behind. 

1439. Facius says that bombards are made either of wrought iron or 
copper ; the two tubes, of which they are composed, being either run to- 
gether, or joined to each other on the same stock. 

In 1452, there was used before Oudenarde a wrought iron cannon made 
of bars. It had a chamber containing 140 pounds of powder; its calibre 
was 22 inches; its circumference 10 feet 10 inches; its weight 33,000 
pounds; it threw stone bullets or smalls casks filled with broken glass, 
scraps of iron, &c. It was called Margot la Folle. 

In 1494, Charles VIII suppressed entirely wrought-iron bombards, and 
had no other artillery than that of bronze. 

In 1544 mention is made of a wrought-iron piece used in the defence of 
St. Dizier ; it weighed 6,831 pounds ; was 8 feet 2 inches long, and it pro- 
jected S cubic feet of stone at once. 

There is at the museum of Paris a wrought-iron piece of 1555, very long, 
but of small calibre, with a movable breech. 

In 1833, there were at Strasbourg several wrought iron cannon bearing 
the date of 1602; some of which were made to load at the breech. 

1621. The cannon called abraga, are loaded by means of separate cham- 
bers. These pieces are usually of wrought iron, and of calibres as high as 
100 pounders. Sarti saw some at Gand and at Amsterdam — one of which 
weighed 33,000 lbs. — where they were used principally on board of vessels. 
Venice has many pieces (50 pounders) of this kind on board of her galleys, 
where they are mounted on carriages. The chambers are of wrought iron 
or bronze — three for each piece. They are fixed in behind, by means of 
wooden wedges; at the moment of firing, those serving the gun stand on 
the sides. 

In 1660, there was cast in India a large bronze cannon, with a wrought- 
iron bore of 6 inches diameter, weighing 7,726 lbs. 

1661. There is at Berlin a wrought-iron piece of this year, for a two 
ounce ball, rifled with 13 grooves, with a screw breech, and a sight turning 
on a hinge. 

There is now at Woolwich (1830) a wrought-iron piece, made at Nu- 
remberg in 1694. There was at Zurich, in 1694, an old wrought-iron can- 
non composed of many pieces, easily separated from each other. 

In 1697, there were made some wrought-iron pieces, composed of bars 
wrapped round a core. An 18-pounder of this kind burst at the first fire. 

The wrought iron cannon made at Ocona, in 1744, stand well the proofs 
to which they are subjected. These cannon are now (1832) in the museum 
of Paris. They are of calibres of 3^ and 2^ inches ; 5 feet 1 inch long. 
One of them weighs 211) lbs. 

1747. Senner fabricates cannon of wrought iron, the bores of which are 
grooved, and the bottom of the bore movable. 

1753. There is at the arsenal of Paris a handsome wrought iron 12- 
ponnder, manufacture of Gentin, weighing 1,600 lbs. It was made solid, 
and bored out. 

1764. There are at the arsenal of Paris 3 wrought iron cannon — one 



24 Rep. No. 479. 

12 and two 8-pounders. These pieces, made on spindles or cores, are con*- 
posed of longitudinal bars covered with bands ; the whole welded together. 

1765. Anciola caused to be made at Pagaloga, in Spain, three wrought- 
iron pieces — one 4 pounder long, one 4-pounder short, and one 8 pounder. 
Bars of iron were used of 1| inch in thickness. These pieces forged solid, 
and afterwards bored and turned, sustained without injury the proof- firing, 
with charges of the whole weight and two thirds the weight of the ball. 
A royal order directed the fabrication in the same manner of two 24 pound- 
er cannon, (weight 20 quintals — 4,400 lbs. English,) two 16 pounders, (19 
quintals — 4,180 lbs. English,) and two 12 pounders, (16 quintals— 3,520 lbs. 
English.) Some of these pieces were cracked in the proof. In one of these 
a new breech was put, and it stood proof. They were forged by hand. 

There is at Paris (1830) a very handsome wrought iron mortar, six and 
a half inches bore, weighing 220 pounds, and made in 1775, at Madrid, by 
Ortega. The collection at Woolwich contains a German wrought-iron 
piece of 1775. 

Norbec saw at St. Sebastian, in 1780, wrought-iron cannon proved at 
that place in 1765, and which had remained since that time under an open 
shed. They were, he says, but little affected by rust. 

1782. In France much interest is taken in wrought-iron pieces. Lan- 
gevin has made two 4-pounders to the order of Marshal de Castries; and 
Bradelle, of Bordeaux, has made many for the owners of privateers, at 
the rate of 25 sous per pound. 

1796. In France bronze artillery proves again to be of little durability. 
La Martilliere supposes that at the peace there will not be less than 1,410 
of these cannon to recast, being completely unserviceable. He proposes to 
make, of wrought iron, small chambered pieces, such as are used at sea, to 
load at the breech. 

1804. They manufacture in France wrought-iron pieces. 

1810. The French find in Spain wrought iron pieces, which the people 
of the country say had been used in the wars against the Moors. 

1812. Fabrication of a wrought-iron 3 pounder at Gkiwitz. 

1813. In France the company St. Etienue offers to deliver daily eight 
24-pounders of wrought iron. An 8-pounder presented for trial sustains 
four fries with three pounds of powder, and five fires with four pounds. 
This piece appears to have been composed of bars wound round an iron 
tube, and joined with silver solder, and a screw breech. The cost of fabri- 
cation was not to exceed that of recasting bronze pieces. 

1820. Professor Persy, in his " Notions on the Forms of Cannon," pro- 
posed to forge iron pieces on a core. 

1828. Horton takes out a patent for wrought-iron cannon. The wrought- 
iron cannon made at Gleiwitz in 1812 is proved. It becomes much heated, 
and cracks ; but sustains, notwithstanding, a great number of charges, with 
ball, and a charge of powder half the weight of the ball. 

1830. A cannon made of bar iron wrapped spirally, and soldered with 
copper, does not sustain the proof-fire. 



Rep. No. 479. 25 

From "Experiments on the Fabrication and Durability of Cannon, both 
Iron and Bronze" collected and arranged by Moritz Meyer; Paris 
edition, of 1834. 

It is certain that no experiment in artillery has been as often unsuccess- 
fully repeated and abandoned as the fabrication of wrought-iron cannon ; 
and even at this time we are but little farther advanced in it than at the be- 
ginning. It is known that the cannon which were called bombards, were 
composed of bars of iron, held by circles, like the staves of a cask ; shortly 
after, they were brazed together. At this time their chief use was to fire 
against cities; and as there was, consequently, little need of accuracy of 
fire, and the powder was weak, and the projectiles of stone, these clumsy and 
badly-made machines were sufficient; they did, however, frequently burst; 
as, for example, at the siege of Constantinople by the Turks, where a 
bombard firing stone projectiles of 480 kilogrammes (1,056 pounds English) 
weight, burst at the first fire, and killed many persons. James II, King 
of Scotland, was killed at the siege of Roxburgh, in 1460, by the bursting 
of a bombard. Ancient writers, such as Miethen, Sardi, &c, relate that 
wrought-iron cannon frequently burst in rapid firing. 

Subsequently, cannon seem to have become more defective, as the artil- 
lery corps became better instructed. Guns of large calibre were abandoned, 
which facilitated the fabrication ; but, at the same time, greater exactness 
was required, and cast-iron balls were introduced ; a greater number of 
pieces were used, and the firing was more rapid: whence the fabrication, 
already defective and difficult, became more so. It was then increased 
by the introduction of trunnions. But, in consequence of the great un- 
certainty of the results of the different welding heats, which often burnt 
the metal in some of its parts, the fabrication of wrought-iron cannon 
was abandoned in the middle of the fifteenth century, for the introduction 
of cast iron. Nevertheless, reckoning on the progress which had been made 
in the art of metallurgy, it was resumed in later times, with the hope of 
overcoming the difficulties which had formerly been regarded as insur- 
mountable Thus, in the 16th and 17th centuries new experiments were 
undertaken, but after a new method. Massive cannon were forged by 
means of skelps suitably prepared. The archives of the arsenal of Paris 
mention a Impounder wrought iron cannon* weighing 1,600 pounds, 
made in this way in 1753. There are to be seen at the museum of the 
artillery school of Strasbourg, four wrought-iron pieces, weighing from 
90 to 100 pounds; one of which bears the date 1601. 

At the commencement of the last century, new attempts were made in 
France to introduce the manufacture of wrought-iron cannon by a new 
process. It was proposed to envelop them with solid bands. A very high 
price was asked for cannon made in this way, under the pretence that they 
must offer great advantages, because the direction of the fibre ©f the iron 
was perpendicular to the axis of the gun, where the greatest strain from 
the ignited powder was exercised. 

St. Remi, in his Memoirs, mentions the process followed on this occa- 
sion ; but he adds, that, notwithstanding the assurances of. one of the 
manufacturers on the excellent quality of an 18 pounder, which he pre- 
sented, it burst at the first fire into two pieces, and killed and threw into 
the Seine many persons. He also mentions a wrought-iron cannon com- 
posed of seven pieces, which offered the advantage of easy transportation; 
but he adds, that it burst into small pieces at the proof. In 1745 several 



26 Rep. No, 479. 

wrought iron 8 and 4 pounder cannon were tried at Toulon. They re- 
sisted charges of six and four pounds of powder. After several discharges, 
one of them (an 8 pounder) began to crack; but, notwithstanding, it 
still stood many fires ; and it was not broken in pieces but with much trou- 
ble, and alter using powerful means. 

In the present century, though not far advanced, much ingenuity has been 
exercised on this unfruitful subject. But although more light has been 
thrown on it than in the preceding century, we have not yet succeeded in 
satisfying the requirements of artillery. 

The experiment which has succeeded best, took place in France in 1813. 
The company Etiemie offered to the Government a wrought-iron 8 ponnd- 
.er, weighing 800 lbs., which, according to Gen. Gassendi, (page 784, 5th edi- 
tion,) had the bore forged in the same manner as a musket barrel, (similar 
ones had already been proposed before ;) the bore was closed by a screw 
breech. This cannon sustained 4 fires with 8 lbs. of powder, and 3 with 5 
lbs. This company engaged to deliver 24 pounders, which should not cost 
more than bronze guns of the same calibre. In Silesia they have forged 
many cannon of a single piece, but which have not given satisfactory re- 
sults. We have seen two cannon which were wrought in a German shop, 
and which were formed of twisted bands of iron, but they broke to pieces 
in the proof. At the Carron works in Scotland experiments have lately 
been made on pieces composed of iron bands, and an Englishman has taken 
out a patent for it, but the results are not known abroad. # 

An objection to wrought-iron guns, which appears much more serious 
than liability to rust, arises from the great difficulty experienced in their 
fabrication on a large scale, which permits the doubt whether it can ever 
furnish a supply sufficient for all wants. When we consider the difficulty 
experienced in finding plates for musket barrels free from defects, even when 
they have been prepared with care — and even after that, how many of these 
barrels are filled with flaws and cracks; when we know how difficult it is 
to weld together pieces of large dimensions, without leaving some places of 
imperfect junction, which may afterwards permit the rust or the fire to pen- 
etrate ; how difficult it is to discover this defect by proof or otherwise ; and, 
finally, how negligent the workmen, and how inattentive even the overseers 
in the shops are, — it must be admitted that a wrought iron gun, which ought 
to undergo the most rigorous proof, would not, even if it should therein 
prove perfectly satisfactory, afford all the necessary guarantees; and the 
success of no one would warrant the adoption of their manufacture on a 

large scale. 

***###»♦ 

Wrought iron (as a material for cannon) fulfilling the requisite condition 
of tenacity, has naturally attracted attention. The difficulty of fabrication 
has not stopped some manufacturers. It seems, indeed, that this obstacle is 
susceptible of being overcome ; and that it has been, as is proved by the 
wrought iron guns which exist at present, and some of which date back to 
very remote periods. Besides, working in iron has in late times made great 
progress; and there is reason to believe that if a reward and a large order 
were secured to him who might present a wrought-iron cannon of sufficient 
strength, a manufacturer, at reasonable prices, would quickly be found. 
But the condition of resistance to the explosion of powder is not the only 
one to be fulfilled. It is also requisite that the bore of the guns should re- 



Rep. No. 479. 27 

sist the pressure and the ballotting of the balls. For many experiments 
prove that lodgments of the balls are often formed in the bores of wrought- 
iron guns, so quickly as to leave doubts as to the great advantages which 
many authors have attributed to this kind of cannon. • 



From Gasse?idi's Aide Me moire : Paris edition of 1819. 

Bat these wrought iron pieces, and others like them— are they good ? 
ought they to be adopted? No. Because — 

1st. They soon destroy the carriage, by the suddenness and length of the 
recoils. 

2d Because of the serious inconvenience to those serving the pieces, from 
the length of the recoil. 

3d. On account of the alteration in the ranges, by the continual and 
inevitable oxidation of the bore. 

4th. The moral effect on the gunners, from the fear of their bursting. 

In fact, these pieces often burst, although the first which are presented by 
the inventors for proof do not always do so, because they use for them 
selected metal, and carefully watch their fabrication. But. in making a 
number, is it to be hoped that the metals will be as scrupulously selected, 
and that an observing and practised eye will watch over the degree of heat 
which the metal ought to have in order to work solidly the immense num- 
ber of welds necessary to finish the piece; then, from firing, the irnperlect 
welds will be imperceptibly opened ; moisture will penetrate the fissures, 
which, increasing to a certain extent, will cause the gun to burst ; exfolia- 
tions will be formed in the bore, which will retain fire and cause accidents. 
Finally, the irremediable oxidation of the bore in time of war will so en- 
large it, as to render the guns unserviceable, and in time of peace there will 
be the trouble of keeping them constantly painted to prevent this oxidation. 
We have been thus profuse on the defects of these pieces, to answer, once 
for all, an innovation which appeared good, and which is often represented 
as something new. 

Mr. Rhodes, a very skillful and practical naval constructor, who was em- 
ployed for some time by the Turkish Government, states that there are in 
the arsenal at Constantinople many wrought iron cannon of calibres varying 
from 100 pounders to the smallest sizes. These guns have all been thrown 
aside, and are no longer cotisidered as suitable for service. By direction of 
the Sultan, some of them have been cut up, both in cross sections and longi- 
tudinally, to ascertain the manner of their fabrication. They were found to 
be composed of bars surrounded by bands, like the staves and hoops of a 
cask, the whole welded together — those of larger size being formed on a 
mandrel, and the smaller ones forged solid and bored out. They were 
composed of successive series of these bars and hoops, laid on each other to 
make the requisite thickness of metal, and the junctions of these layers, as 
also of the bars and hoops of the same layer, were distinctly perceptible. 
The defects were enlargements and batterings of the bores, arising from 
the effects of the charges on the soft metal composing the guns. 

Respectfully submitted : 

G. TALCOTT, 
Lieutenant Colonel Ordnance. 

Ordnance Office, Washington, April 5, 1844. 



28 Rep. No. 479. 

• 

Navy Department, 
April 17, 1844. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit a report from the Bureau of Ordnance 
and Hydrography, with the papers therein referred to ; prepared in com- 
pliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives, passed on the 
23d alt.', in relation to wrought-iron cannon. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. Y. MASON. 
Hon. John W. Jones, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 



Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography, 

April 2, 1844. 

Sir: In reply to your letter of the 28th ult., transmitting a call from the 
House of Representatives, for information respecting the strength, utility, 
and cost of wrought-iron cannon ; and the result of the experience of 
European powers on the subject, which may be in the possession of this 
bureau, — I have the honor to submit the accompanying papers, marked 
from INos. 1 to 4, viz : 

No. 1. — Captain R. F. Stockton's report of his gun-practice with his 
wrought-iron gun at Sandy Hook. 

No. 2. — Report of inspection of the first gun, by Commodore Wadsworth. 

No. 3. — Captain Stockton's report of proof of gun. 

No. 4. — The cost of each of the wrought-iron guns, made under the 
superintendence of Captain Stockton, so far as paid for by this bureau. 

Our information in relation to wrought-iron cannon is very scanty. 
Tousard tells us, in a note to page 190, vol. 1st, Artillerist's Companion, 
that, "in 1776 an iron gun was forged by Mr. Samuel Wheeler, an emi- 
nent artist, still living (1809) in the city of Philadelphia. It was intend- 
ed, at first, as a 4-pounder ; but was only bored for a 3-pounder. This 
gun was taken at the battle of Brandywine, and is said to be now in 
the Tower of London." I believe this is the only gun of which we 
have any record in this country, as having been used in actual warfare, 
and, as it appears, with success. The next account of the manufacture 
and proof of wrought-iron guns in this country, is found in the report of 
a board of officers of the army, as follows: 

"A 6-pounder wrought-iron gun, manufactured by R. and S. Hunt, an- 
chor-makers, was tried at Watervliet arsenal in 1832. This gun was 
fired 2 proof charges, and 40 rounds service charges. At the 18th fire, 
the band which held the trunnions slipped off, and had to be replaced. 
After the 40 rounds, the gun still remained serviceable. The greatest en- 
largement of the bore was found to be 0.04 inch — which is more than 
double that of any of the brass guns proved lately; from whence we may 
infer, that, if all difficulties were overcome, and a complete iron gun made, 
it would have no great advantage over bronze, as regards its durability. 
It is understood that these same manufacturers failed in making other 
wrought-iron guns. 

"Although a proof gun can be made when the metal is selected with 
great care, and the fabrication carefully watched ; yet, in fabricating them 
on a large scale, it will be impossible to take the precautions necessary to 



Rep. No. 479. 29 

insure the perfectness of all these numerous welds. The smallest crack 
would contain moisture, which would produce oxidation; and this would, 
in time, destroy the gun. The board do not think it necessary to incur 
further expense in testing this material." 

Again, says this report : " Guns of this material (wrought iron) were 
the first used ; and they have been tried, at various periods since the first 
invention of gunpowder, and always without success. 

"The first and greatest objection is, the difficulty of welding the parts 
together perfectly, and the still greater difficulty of determining whether 
the welds are perfect or not In the account of a wrought-iron gun, tried 
at Toulon in 1745, it is stated, that, after the gun was broken up, the 
cascabel and trunnions were found to be held only by a portion of the 
faces which touched. Three-fourths of these faces showed the effects of 
rust." 

It appears from most authorities, that the art of casting guns was esteemed 
a great improvement upon the more ancient art of forging them, and, what- 
ever may have been the cause, immediately superseded the latter. The 
cause may have been the vastly diminished cost of the cast-iron guns, or the 
facility of manufacture, or the opinion of greater security and certainty in 
the use: or, probably, the combination of all of these. Certain it is, that 
the forged guns went entirely out of use. 

Several accounts of these forged iron guns are given by writers on 
artillery. Tousard says, page 168, vol. 1 : "There are at present (1809) 
on the ramparts of Narbonne, two old pieces, composed of iron bars, ap- 
plied lengthwise, and encircled with strong iron hoops transversely; the 
whole soldered together. They are not much altered, although they have 
been neglected for a long time; but the rust has injured them most in 
the points of junction, and made these more apparent. It is probable that 
if, at the time when they were made, the arts had been as far advanced as 
they are at present, they would still be fit for service." 

" New attempts have lately been made in France, at Guerigny, department 
de la Nievre, and in Spain, at Caveda, New Castile, to construct such guns ; 
and they have been crowned with success. But, at first, when compared 
with cast-iron guns, a wrought-iron heavy ordnance would have been 
attended with considerable expense, as well from the price of metal, as 
from the attention which their fabrication requires; and, secondly, the 
enormous consumption and want of cannon at that time (1794) compelled 
a recurrence to the most expeditious and least expensive proceedings— 
therefore, to confine their fabrication to cast iron. However, they are not 
half as expensive as brass guns." 

It may be remarked here, that Tousard was strongly in favor of experi- 
menting upon wrought-iron cannon, with a view to their introduction into 
the service of the country. He observes, however, of cast iron, "that if it 
was by some means possible to produce a more perfect melting of the iron, 
cannon cast of this metal, with an equal thickness, would be stronger, 
more durable, and lighter than brass cannon." (page 198.) He gives the 
preference, however, to brass cannon, because "the service of which should 
present more security." 

Grose, in his Military Antiquities, vol. 1, page 381, says that cannon 
" were in general constructed of iron bars, soldered or welded together, and 
strengthened with iron hoops; others were made of plates of iron rolled up, 
and fortified with iron hoops." He speaks of several "at Woolwich — one 



30 Rep. No. 479. 

belonging to Pooley, esq., in Suffolk;" and "also several of those 

hooped onus in the Isle of Man, England." Bombards were at first chiefly- 
made of hammered iron ; but, in process of time, many were cast of that 
composition named bell or gun metal. They were also sometimes made of 
plates of iron and copper, with lead run between them. One of these guns 
was taken up on the coast of Ireland. 

That wrought iron guns, constructed of iron bars hooped together, were 
used very generally, we know from the specimens yet preserved, and the 
facts of history. James the Second of Scotland lost his life before Rox- 
burgh castle, by the bursting of one of these guns. In 1545, a man-of- 
war, named the " Mary Rose," commanded by Sir George Carew, sunk off 
the Isle of Wight, with her whole crew. 300 years nearly after the acci- 
dent, Mr. Dean, with his diving apparatus, raised a 24 pounder brass gun, 
and, at the same time, some iron guns. The iron guns were formed of iron 
bars, hooped together with iron rings ; and they were all loaded, &c. — Wil- 
kinson's Engines of War. 

"In 1813, a company of mechanics of Lyons, named the ' Etienne Com- 
pany,' proposed to the French Government to manufacture all the guns 
wanted, of forged iron. They sent to Paris a specimen 8 pounder, weigh- 
ing 570 lbs. It was mounted upon a truck carriage, with solid wheels, 17 
inches in diameter, and fired with 3 lbs. of powder. The recoil was 25 feet ; 
with 4 lbs of powder, it was 37 feet. The gun sustained nine rounds with- 
out injury ; but the material was not approved by the French officers. Other 
pieces of the calibre of 16 and 24 were made ; the mode of fabrication seemed 
to be thus : Upon a tube formed after the manner of a common fowling- 
piece, or gun barrel, bands of iron were welded, embracing the tube, but in 
a direction contrary to that of the fibres of the tube, until the requisite size 
and strength were obtained. The gun was bored out to the proper calibre, 
and the breech-piece screwed in and soldered to its place by silver solder, 
which was esteemed the best. The different bands of iron were welded 
to each other, and to the tube, by blows from the hand hammer. 

"The inventor proposed to employ in the fabrication of 24 pounders, &c., 
bars of iron 12 feet long by 1 foot 8 inches, which, forged out into skelps, 
and converted into bands thinned off at the sides, were welded together over 
a mandrel, under blows of a trip-hammer. The trunnions were welded to 
one of these bands. The bars used were twisted ; and they believed that, 
as the small arms manufactured were excellent, this process augmented the 
tenacity of the metal by a fourth ; and this was their secret. 

" But extending the manufacture on a great scale, could we hope that the 
metal shall always be scrupulously chosen, and that a practised and ob- 
serving eye shall always watch over the degree of heat which the metal 
ought to have, in order to work to a uniform solidity the prodigious quan- 
tity of welding necessary to perfect the piece? When the gun is fired, the 
imperfect weldings will open imperceptibly, and the damps will penetrate 
the fissures, which, after a time, will cause the gun to crack, and form 
within the bore leafy exfoliations, which, retaining the fire, will occasion 
accidents. In short, the irremediable oxidation of the bore in time of war 
will so enlarge it, as to throw the piece out of service ; and in time of peace 
they would require frequent painting to prevent this oxidation." 

" The objections to the wrought iron gun are continued thus : 

" 1st, They promptly destroy the carnages, by the suddenness and extent 
of the recoil. 



Rep. No. 479. 31 

"2d. They incommode greatly the troops, by the length of the recoil. 

"3d. They will change their range greatly, by the continued and inevit- 
able oxidation of the bore. 

"4th. They enfeeble the moral of the cannonier, by the continued appre- 
hension of their bursting. 

" In fact, these guns often burst, although 'the first pieces furnished by the 
company for proof did not always burst. We have thus dealt at large upon 
the defects of wrought iron guns, in order to reply, once for all, to the pre- 
tensions of an invention which claims to be good, and is often represented 
as new." — Aide- Me moire, vol. 2, page 784, &c. Paris, 1819. 

Some of the Spanish writers speak of wrought-iron guns: thus, Ciscar, 
in his Tratado de Artilleria, Madrid, 1829, says : " We do not owe the in- 
formation that wrought iron cannon of all descriptions formerly existed, to 
the Chevalier d'Arcy alone, but also to many writers. Texier de Norbec, 
amongst others, treats at length of various guns of this kind. From 1666 
to 1694 there was one in the arsenal of Zurich, in Switzerland, of 24 pound 
calibre, the constituent parts of which admitted of being dismounted and 
replaced at pleasure." 

"In the arsenal of Paris are found two pieces — one a 12-pounder, and one 
an 8 pounder — constructed oftubes one within the other, secured by strong 
bands, and the whole welded together ; and I am assured that we have in 
our own establishments two wrought iron guns, light, and of perfect work- 
manship." 

"At the chateau of St. Dizier a very old piece was found, of a calibre of 
twenty inches, and weighing 7,616 lbs.; the chase was made of wrought 
iron, and the chamber and breech cast of the same metal. At Hartz, also, 
were some pieces, 12 and 16 pounders, of wrought iron, which do not ap- 
pear to have been fabricated in the usual manner, with bars and bands 
welded together, nor is the process known ; they weigh about 8,000 lbs." 

Again: "At Brest is a cannon taken from the English, weighing 7,723 
lbs., 11 feet 1 inch long, and of 6-inch calibre. The bore is made of seven 
bars of wrought iron, secured by bands of the same metal." — Aide-Memoire, 
vol. 2, p. 784. 

It appears that wrought-iron guns have been made from the earliest 
times, and were, until superseded by the introduction of cast-iron and 
bronze cannon, the principal artillery in use ; that at different periods since 
the general use of cast guns, efforts to construct serviceable cannon of 
wrought iron have been made by the principal European powers ; and that, 
whatever may have been the cause, they have not been again employed in 
active warfare. The inference is, therefore, although no further information 
than the foregoing is in the possession of this bureau, that they have not 
been used for good and sufficient reasons. 

The two wrought iron guns on board the steamer "Princeton" being the 
only guns of that description ever used in the navy, no opportunity has 
been afforded this bureau of ascertaining the relative strength and utility 
of wrought and cast iron cannon. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

I have the honor to be, verv respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 

W. M. CRANE. 

Hon. John Y. Mason, 

<S cretary of the Navy. 



32 Rep. No. 479. 

No. I. 

Philadelphia, December 23, 1842. 

Sir : In accordance with yonr instructions. I will have the honor to trans- 
mit herewith "a detailed statement of the practice 1 have already had with 
the wrought iron 12 inch gun ; the effects of firing on the gun. and its pres- 
ent state and condition ; the ranges of the shot, strain on the gun-carriage, 
and the recoil," &c. 

Having proposed this new gun, and having suggested the necessity of 
the experiments, the particulars of which I am now to detail for the inform- 
ation of the department, it may not be considered impertinent to take a brief 
notice of the art of gunnery, to show its inapplicability to practical results 
generally, and especially to the practice with the wrought iron gun of 12 
inches diameter and 212-lb. shot. The formula laid down in the books on 
the art of gunnery being in most cases empirical, (although they may ex- 
press the facts with regard to the motions of shot of nearly the same size,) 
are inapplicable to the present experiments; giving, in most cases, results 
differing widely from the true observed results. The calculations most re- 
lied upon, and from which the rules of gunnery have been deduced, were 
based upon the supposition that the ball passed through a vacuum; and 
therefore it is that many of the practical rules deduced from them are erro- 
neous. For instance: it is calculated that the curve which is made by the 
flight of a ball through the air, is a parabolic curve. It would no doubt be 
such a curve, if the ball moved through " free space ;" but the resistance of 
the atmosphere foreshortens it within a circle. Hence the necessity of a 
new series of experiments, to show the difference in the flight of a 212 lb. 
ball and a 42 lb. ball ; and to prove that, I have heretofore, and do now, in- 
sist on it, that the larger and heavier the ball, the greater the range, and the 
greater the accuracy of firing. (See tables D and E, and plate 1. fig. 5.) 
Again : the rule laid down in books on gunnery that I have seen, make 
the initial velocity of the shot directly as the square root of the weight of 
powder, and inversely as the square root of the weight of the shot. Now, 
taking the velocity of a 24 lb. ball, with a charge of 8 lbs. of powder, at 
1,339 feet per second, (see "Sir Howard Douglass on Gunnery," page 132,) 
and deducing the velocity of a 212-lb. shot with 25 lbs. of powder, accord- 
ing to the above rule, it will give an initial velocity of 796 feet per second; 
whereas the true velocity was found, by actual experiment, to be more than 
1,100 feet per second. 

Before the experiments were commenced, the wrought-iron gun was 
proved by a charge of 35 lbs. of powder, the strength of which was more 
than 40 yards greater than "navy proof," and with one shot of 212 lbs. 

The first experiment was designed to ascertain the destructive effects of 
a shot of 212 lbs., and the accuracy with which it could be propelled from 
the wrought-iron gun ; the distance of the target from the gun being 557 
yards, and the gun ten feet above the level of the ground. For these ends, 8 
shots were fired at the target from this gun. By referring to plate 1, fig. 2, 
you will see the place struck by each shot, and the surprising accuracy with 
which they passed through the target. Plates Nos. 2 and 3 will exhibit the 
extraordinary effects of two of the shot upon the target, which was made 
to represent a section of the two sides and deck of a 74-gun ship, timbered, 
kneed, planked, and bolted in the same manner that a ship of that class is. 

The next experiment was intended to make a comparison between the 
wrought and the cast gun made for that purpose. By referring to table A, 



Rep. No 479. 33 

and to plate 1, fig. 3. yon will see that the wrought gun was much superior to 
the cast gun ; that the wrought gun sent every shot with great precision and 
certainty, and that the cast often missed ; that the wrought sent the shot with 
unerring aim directly at the target, and that the cast gun was irregular and 
often wide of the mark. The average distance that the shot fired from the 
wrought gun passed from the vertical line through the centre of the target, 
was two feet three inches — never varying more than 7 feet ; while the aver- 
age distance that the shot from the oast gun passed from the same line was 
nearly thirteen and a half feet, varying sometimes 40 feet. 

This target having stood the fire of two years' previous experiments, 
with shot and shells, it was thought important to see what the effect of a 
few more 212-lb. shot would be upon it. It was soon destroyed. I am in- 
formed that the naval constructor at New York was sent down by Captain 
Perry to examine it, that it might be repaired ; and that he reported that it 
could not be repaired — that it was "cut in two? 

Having destroyed the first target, and having proved the undoubted, 
superiority of the wrought, over the cast-iron gun, the next experiment was 
made to try the accuracy of the wrought gun at a greater distance, and 
with greater charges of powder, (see table B;) for which purpose the 
strongest remaining target was selected. This target was 910 yards (more 
than half a mile) from the gun. It is 32 inches thick, made of oak and 
hard pine, fastened about every nine inches with screw bolts 1^ inch in 
diameter. It had successfully resisted all previous firing with shot and 
shells, and escaped, as far as I can learn, any serious injury. We found 
pieces of shells between the timbers, which appeared to have burst there, 
doing but little mischief. By referring to plate I, fig. 4, you will see where 
each shot passed through the target. Of the eight shots fired at it, seven 
struck it, and one, falling short, struck an inclined sand-bank, and bounded 
over the middle of the target. 

The strength of this target, induced me to endeavor to cut it through 
horizontally, and you will observe that six out of the seven shot that hit 
the. target struck the same plank ; a degree of precision and effect which I 
will venture to affirm has never been equalled by any other gun. We de- 
sisted after eight shots had been fired at it, for fear of destroying it entirely. 

Being quite satisfied as to the accuracy of the wrought-iron gun, and the 
destructive effects of the shot, the next experiment was made to ascertain 
whether a wrought iron target \\ inches thick could be penetrated by shot. 
A target was made, similar in all respects to the one made by Mr. Stevens, 
and fired at in presence of Commodore Stewart and other officers. The 
cast iron gun was first tried, and, with a charge of 35 lbs. of powder, it 
burst, as you have been informed by a previous report. 

The wrought- iron gun was then fired at it with a charge of 25 lbs. of 
powder, and one shot of 212^ lbs., which struck it nearly in the centre, and 
passed through it, and 5 feet into a sand bank. 

The next experiment was made with a view to find the initial velocity 
of, and the true curve made by, the ball in its flight through the air — facts 
and principles connected therewith, upon which rests, in my opinion, the 
whole art of gunnery, and which, so far as I know, have never been satis- 
factorily ascertained, either in this country or in Kurope ; and with the aid 
of which, I think a table maybe made, not to occupy more than two leaves 
of the signal book, by which a commander may direct at a fort every gun 
in his squadron with unerring certainty. 
3 



34 Rep. No. 479. 

For this purpose, the experiment with the 12 screens (which I have be- 
fore described to you) was instituted, which you will see, with its results, as 
far as they could be ascertained, by reference to plate 1, fig. 6. 

Having got, as far as stated, the velocity and the curve made by the ball, 
the next experiment was to fire at long ranges by a table of angles calcu- 
lated, from the above results, to show how near we had arrived at any cer- 
tainty in this important art. With this object in view, we fired one shot 
with the calculated angle for 440 yards, (see table D,) and struck very near 
the spot expected. The precise spot could not be ascertained, as the tide 
was up on the stakes some three feet. The next day came on a severe 
storm ; and the weather being very cold, and the officers and men much 
exposed, I suspended operations for the season, as you have already been 
informed. 

These experiments ought, in my opinion, to be repeated under better cir- 
cumstances. The weather was so bad, and the wind so high, that the 
screens were disturbed and broken before we could get the measurements 
as accurately as they ought to be obtained. 

Nothing has heretofore depended more on the blind chance of fortune 
than a sea fight. 1 have endeavored to reduce the art of gunnery to some- 
thing more certain in practice, and more satisfactory in science. Consider- 
ing the means at my disposal, something, in my judgment, has been accom- 
plished. I only ask you to compare the plan adopted for these experiments, 
the expense and the results, with any others that have been made ; and 
say whether another gun should not be at once put in hand, and all other 
appliances prepared as soon as possible, so as to confirm what has thus far 
been developed. 

The wrought-iron gun was strengthened by bands shrunk on after the 
gun was made. In consequence of two of these bands having been put on 
too tight, they have cracked by the jar of the explosion. I will have one 
of them taken off, that Commodore Wads worth may see how perfect the 
gun is under them, and will have others put in their place. 

I have now only to inform you that the gun is as perfect, in every respect, 
as when the experiments commenced — not having, as far as I know, a single 
scratch inside of the bore. The new wrought-iron carriage answers in all 
r^pects well ; it has not been in the slightest degree injured, and its recoil 
(as you will see by table C) has never been more than 3 feet. 

The gun can be loaded and managed almost as easily as a 42-lb. gun 
on the lower deck of a 74-gun ship. 

Supposing that, from the great surface of a 212-lb. ball, the ricochet 
would be more regular and important than that of any other shot, I made 
the following experiment, which, in copying this report, has been omitted 
in its proper place. A target only 8 feet square was anchored one mile 
from the gun, and the gun fired at it with a depression of half a degree. 
The shot never rose more than 10 feet above the water, and passed 
through the target as shown in plate 1, fig. 1. 

It was intended to have tried longer ranges, both at ricochet and by direct 
shots ; but, owing to the roughness of the sea, and the high winds, we had 
not the means of securing, for a sufficient length of time, the targets at sea; 
nor were there ranges of sufficient length on shore. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient and faithful servant, 

R. F. STOCKTON, Captain V. S. N. 

To Com. Wm. M. Crane, Bureau of Ordnance. 



Rep. No. 479. 35 

EXPLANATION OF PLATES. 



Explanation of Plate I. 

Fig. 1 shows the path of the ball, and the manner of striking the target (of only 8 feet square) 
at the distance of one mile. 

Fig. 2. — Elevation of the timber target represented in Plates Nos. 2 and 3, showing the posi- 
tion of the eight shot fired from Captain Stockton's wrought-iron gun as they struck the target — 
numbered in the order in which they were fired. 

P, P. Painted to represent port-holes of ship. 

The average distance of the points passed by the shot from the central point of the target is 
b\ feet, or from the central line 3f feet. 

N. B. — The above shot are all that have yet (September, 1842) been fired from the wrought- 
iron gun. 

Fig. 3 illustrates the result of a comparison made between the wrought and cast gun. (See 

table A.) 

Fig. 4 shows the manner in which the shot struck the target 910 yards from the gun. (See 
table B.) 

Behind and within one hundred feet of this target, there was, at the close of the firing, no 
place large enough for a man to stand upon, which was not covered with splinters and fragments 
of the iron bolts. 

Fig. 5 shows the path of a 42-pound shot, as near as can be ascertained from the discordant 
tables of ranges to be found in books of gunnery ; and the path of a 212-pound shot, fired with 
125 pounds of powder, according to .the column of ranges in table D. 

Fig. G shows the firing through 12 canvass screens, 30 yards apart. 

The curve made by the ball in passing through the screens was very nearly (a little within) 
an arc of a circle of 36,000 feet diameter. Taking this experiment in connexion with the other 
firing, it is found that the ball describes a curve, whoso deflections from a tangent are as the 
2.10th power of the distance from the gun. The initial velocity is calculated to be 1,137 feet 
per second. 

According to the. table of ranges in Sir H. Douglass, a 42-pound ball describes a curve, whose 
deflections from a tangent are as the 2.50th power of the distance. 

Owing to the rise of the tide before the experiment was completed, and the roughness of the 
water, it was impossible to get accurate measurements. It is very desirable that this experiment 
should be repeated in calm weather, and the measurements made with great precision. 

Explanation of Plate II. 

A, A. Sides of the ship, of solid oak, 30 inches thick. 

B. Hole made by the ball, 3 feet by 3 feet. 

C. Timber, 10 by 12 inches, 8 feet long, drove in by the ball — 8 bolts, 20 inches, being 

drawn. 

D. Stick of timber, 9 by 11 inches, 3 feet 9 inches long, secured by 7 bolts, torn off and 

carried 45 feet from B. 

E. Part of the lining-timber from B, containing two 20-inch bolts, carried 45 feet. 
F, F. Splinters from B, carried frgm 70 to 80 feet — one 7 feet in length. 

H. Indentation through live-oak knee, and into timbers, 15 inches deep, produced by 

the ball. 
J. Position of the ball after rebounding. 
K, K. Iron bolts, 21 inches long, 1 inch to 1^ inch in diameter, torn out of the timbers and 
bent, as shown. 
L, L, &c. Upwards of 80 splinters of various dimensions, torn from the ship's side, and scat- 
tered, as represented. 

Explanation of Plate III. 

A, A, A. Path of the shot. 

B. Hole in the ship's side next the gun. 

C. Hole in the ship's side farthest from the gun. 

D. Timber, 8| by about 11 inches, upwards of 20 feet long, thrown round at right 

angles, 33 bolts being drawn. 
E, E, E. Fragments from 150 pounds weight down to the smallest size, covering the ground 
for 40 or 50 feet from each hole. 
The shot, after passing through the second ship's side, continued on its course, and made 
several ricochets on the marsh beyond. 

Whole thickness of timber passed through by this shot, 57 inches. 



36 



Rep. No. 479. 
A. 

Table comparing the firing with the two guns at a target 



CAST-IRON GUN. 



Charges of powder. 


a 

_o 

CO 

> 


<+; 
o 

£ o 

— P 

CB ^ 
CV X 
c_< 

a 

ca 
35 


Shot passed from 
vertical line on 
target. 


g 

5 

G Ja 

CD — 
tJX) -O 

= -i 
ca to 

- « 

£ 

o 


> 

"5 
tu 

c 

o 


cs 

CO 

c & 

«■. "O 

3 

re 


.5? 

£ 


Lbs. 


Yards. 


Deg. vain. 


Yards. 


Right. 


Left,. 


Feet. 


Feet per 


Feet. 


Seconds 




pr 


oof* 












second. 






14 






2 7J 


490 


12 it. 


_ 


64 


685 


16.887 


2.00 


14 






2 71 


500 




1» fi. 


67 


732 


16.800 


2.05 


14 






2 10 


557 


12 " 


_ 


72 


7h8 


19.390 


2.12 


14 






2 10 


550 


12 " 


_ 


72 


778 


18.975 


2.12 


14 




_ 


2 IU 


557 


3 " 


_ 


<;i 


857 


22.887 


1.95 


14 






2 10 


5i>0 


_ 


40 " 


67 


732 


16.800 


2.05 


14 






2 10 


500 


_ 


3 '< 


67 


732 


16.800 


2.05 


14 




_ 


2 10 


5.37 


12 " 


_ 


59 


870 


23.663 


1.92 


14 




_ 


2 12 


557 


_ 


3 " 


59 


870 


23.663 


1.92 


14 




- 


2 U 


557 


_ 


8 " 


6S 


811 


20.531 


2.06 


20 




- 


1 ~30 


557 


2 " 


- 


38 


1,092 


36.740 


f.53 


20 




_ 


1 40 


525 


_ 


30 " 


56 


842 


22.148 


1.87 


20 




_ 


2 


557 


14 " 


_ 


60 


865 


23.268 


1.93 


20 




_ 





2rio 


_ 


30 " 


13 


967 


29. Ill 


0.90 


£0 






1 


300 




4 " 


21 


790 


19.285 


1.14 


20 




- 


1 


400 


12 " 


- 


34 


828 


21.176 


1.45 




79 " 


i3t; 














79 




















16) 


215 ( 


13.44, a v 


erage disi 


ance from 


centre. 



Note — The great discrepancies in the above table can only be accounted for by the gieat in- 
accuracy of the cast-iron gun. 



* Not having the use of the eprouvette until after the experiments were nearly completed, 
by eprouvette, and found to vary from 20 to 30 yards in the same barrel. This was caused. 



Rep. No. 479. 

A. 

557 yards from the guns. — (See plate \.,fig- 3. J 

WROUGrlT-IRON GUN. 



37 















^ 






o 








B J 




















■£'* 












C3 




u 




-e ._" 






~ 






.5 




■p 




V CD 






2 r' 


t^ 




s -6 




3 






Shot pas 


■u?d from 


C 'C 


'3 


to 






5 

01 


a 




CJ i_ 


veitical line on 
taiget. 


1 ^ 


"3 
> 

CO 


'cj — 

5 C 
■j. -c 




BUD 


eS 


g» 






g S 




ii 


,~ 




3 


> 

0) 

a 


K 7 

c- 






p 
fa 


s 

o 


S 

'£ 


re 


Lbs. 


Yards, 
proof.* 


Deg. min. 


Yards. 


Right. 


Left. 


Feet. 


Feet per 
second. 


Seconds. 


Feet. 


14 




2 74 


557 




7 ft. 


68 


811 


2.06 


20.531 


11 




2 74 


080 


Over 


middle 


80 


876 


2.32 


24.200 


14 




2 ~h 


500 




3 ft. 


65 


746 


2.01 


17 315 


14 




2 10 


535 


3 ft. 




7L 


758 


2.11 


18. Ul 


14 




2 10 


557 




I 1; 


64 


835 


2.00 


21.815 


14 




2 10 


545 


1 " 




71 


775 


2.11 


18.825 


14 




2 10 


557 


2 " 


_ 


72 


788 


2.12 


19.390 


14 




2 10 


557 


. 1 " 




70 


800 


2.09 


19.944 


14 




2 10 


557 




7 " 


72 


788 


2. 12 


19.390 


14 




2 12 


557 




I " 


68 


811 


2.06 


20.531 


11 




2 15 


557 


" 


" 


64 


835 


2.00 


21.815 


14 




2 15 


557 


2 " 




75 


760 


2.20 


18.615 


14 




2 15 


557 


" 


ii " 


60 


823 


2.03 


21.120 


14 




2 20 


557 


3 " 




68 


811 


2.06 


20.531 


14 




40 


360 


" 


" 


24 


885 


1.22 


24.300 


14 




40 


300 


6 " 




20 


804 


1.12 


20.250 


14 




40 


350 




2 " 


24 


861 


1.22 


22.968 


20 




1 30 


557 




2 " 


47 


977 


1.71 


29.705 


20 




1 30 


400 




3 " 


47 


860 


1.71 


22.988 


•20 




1 30 


557 




2 " 


46 


083 


1.70 


30.350 


20 




I 30 


557 


2 " 




46 


983 


1.70 


30.350 


20 




1 30 


557 


20 
30 


2 " 
30 


46 


983 


1.70 


30.350 








22) 


50 


(2.27 av 


erage dis 


tance from 


centre 


line. 



Note.— The average distance from the centre line would have been less, but that several shot 
were aimed at points distant from the centre line. This, with the variableness in the strength 
o! the powder, will account for the slight discrepancies that may appear in the above table. 

we could not ascertain, before using it, the strength of the powder. It was tried afterwards 
no doubt, by the openness of the house in which it was for some time kept. 



38 



Rep. No. 479. 
B. 



Table showing the result of firing with the wrought-iron gun at a target 
910 yards from the gun. 

The first shot struck an inclined sand-bank in front of the target, and bounded over ; the rest 
struck as shown in plate 1, fig. 4. 









^ 


i 


_ 






t* 








.2 o 

C Ml 


P i§ 


"3 




>. 


3 -3 








p«3 


<£ ^ 


«« 3 




3 


"1 ' 








O m 


-B <u 


O MJ 




_c 


u -r; 


Charge of powder. 


^3 


* J "3 
c 2 




.2 s 




"3 
"j3 


o m 

K "T3 








C 09 




o 3 






3 ,i 






> 


C3 -4-> 

a* 


Shot 
cen 
get. 


Defle 
fr 




3 
3 

6 


Pi 


Pounds. 


Yards proof.* 


Dcg. min. 


Fartfs. 


Right. 


Left. 




Feet. 


Seconds. 




20 


_ 


2 30 


840 


6 feet 


_ 


119 


923 


2.75 


26.682 


•20 


- 


2 40 


890 


6 " 


- 


133 


927 


2.88 


26.800 


20 


- 


2 50 


910 


" 


" 


139 


925 


2.95 


26.809 


20 


- 


2 50 


860 


- 


6 feet 


136 


883 


2.92 


24.472 


20 


- 


2 50 


910 


9 " 


_ 


143 


913 


2.99 


26.059 


20 


- 


2 50 


910 


8 " 


- 


139 


925 


2.95 


26.809 


25 


- 


2 20 


910 


3 " 


- 


114 


1019 


2.67 


32.688 


25 


_ 


2 20 


910 


3.i " 


- 


114i 


1018 


2.68 


32.404 



In calculating the velocities in these tables, gravity is taken at 32.315, and the resistance of the 
air allowed for. 

* See remarks in table A, amply sufficient to account for the only discrepancy in this table. 



Table showing the recoil of the wroughl-iron gnu, with different charges 

of powder. 



Charge of powder. 

14 pounds. 
20 do. 
25 do. 



Recoil. 

28 inches. 
33 do. 
36 do. 



Rep. No. 479. 



39 



D. 



Table showing the ranges of the 212-poimd gun, with 25 pounds of pow- 
der, as found by experiment and by calculation, according to the rule 
found to give the ranges of this gun so far as tidied, to wit : that the de- 
flections from the tangent are as the 2.10th power of the range. The 
ranges in the table are to the plane of the gun, except the shot fired at 
34 minutes, ivhich was to the ground. 



Elevation. 


Range. 


Deflections. 


Deg. 



Min. 

34 


Yards. 

440 


Yards. 

8 


To the ground, 14 or 15 feet below. 


1 

2 






409 

767 


7 
27 


To 


plane of gun. 
Do. 


3 





1,112 


59 




Do. 


4 





1,440 


100 




Do. 


5 





1,763 


153 




Do. 


6 





2,077 


217 




Do. 


7 





2,391 


291 




Do. 


8 
9 






2,697 
2,999 


375 
469 




Do. 
Do. 


10 





3,298 


572 




Do. 


11 
12 






3,593 

3,883 


685 
803 




Do. 
Do. 


13 





4,173 


939 




Do. 


14 





4,458 


1,078 




Do. 


15 





4,740 


1,227 




Do. 


16 





5,020 


1,383 




Do. 


17 





5,263 


1,549 




Do. 



E. 

Table showing the absolute resistance, and the comparative effect of the 
resistance, of the air upon balls of 42 and of 212. lbs. weight at different 
velocities. 



Velocity. 


Absol 


ute resistance ir 


pounds. 


Comparative 
terms of the we 


resistance in 
ght of the ball 


Feet per sec. 


Mb. ball. 


42-lb. ball. 


212-lb. ball. 


42-lb. ball. 


212-lb. ball. 


200 


0.69 


8.15 


25.07 


0.18 


0.11 


400 


2.81 


33.19 


102.10 


0.79 


0.48 


600 


6.69 


79.00 


243.07 


1.88 


1.15 


800 


12.81 


151.29 


465.16 


3.60 


2.19 


1000 


21.88 


258.40 


794.97 


6.16 


3.74 


1200 


34.13 


403.07 


1,240.06 


9.59 


5.85 



40 Rep. No 479. 

As a cannon ball would have in vacuo a range about eight times as 
great as its actual range in the air; and as the effect of the air upon the 
motion of a 2l2-lb. hall is only about six-tenths as much as upon a 42-lb. 
ball, (compare the last two columns of the preceding table.) it is easy to be 
perceived why the latter, with a high initial velocity, should have a much 
less range than the former, with a moderate initial velocity. 



No. 2. 



Flushing, N. Y., December 21, 1842. 
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that I have made an examination 
of the 12'inch wrought-iron gun of Captain Stockton, now at the Phoenix 
foundry, in New York. On the exterior of the gun, is a crack on the 
upper part of the band which connects the trunnions to the gun; a crack 
on the under part of the body of the gun, in the reinforce. One of the 
bands which have been put on to secure the gun in this part, has been 
cracked, and is taken off; and both the arms of the breeching-cleat, 
formed on the screw-nut of the bolt through the breech, are slightly 
cracked. The hand connecting the trunnions was put on the gun when 
heated, and shrunk on very tight — so much so, as to compress the metal 
of the gun in this part. The fracture of it, I learn, took place on the first 
discharge of the gun, in Philadelphia, with a blank cartridge; since which, 
it has not altered. It does not extend the whole width of the band. Its 
depth cannot be ascertained. This band was not put on for the purpose 
of strengthening the gun, but for securing the trunnions, which remain 
firm. It is about 11 inches in width and 2\ inches in depth or thick- 
ness. The band which has been taken off from the reinforce, was one of 
four which were put on over a rent which appeared, and to strengthen 
the gun in this part, and are each nearly 9 inches in widtfl and 2f in depth. 
These bands were also put on the gun hot, and shrunk on ; and it being 
probably tighter than the others, and owing to the extreme tension of the 
metal, it broke from the concussion of the gun after a number of dis- 
charges—how many, I am not informed. These four bands were placed 
contiguous to each other, and so neatly finished that their joints could 
not be distinguished, and in appearance formed one band. The rent in 
the solid part of the gun is barely perceptible when it is uncovered by the 
displacement of the band. Its extent I cannot tell; but I should judge 
that no alteration had taken place since the band was put on, and that 
the band was broken by the concussion, rather than by any opening or 
enlargement of the gun itself. 

The fracture of the arms of the breeching-cleat was caused, 1 under- 
stand, by the unskillful use of a lever in handling and moving the gun. 
I consider them sufficiently strong for present use, as they are only useful 
in keeping the breeching in place, if one should be used, and no great 
strain is brought on them by it. Indeed, I do not know that a breeching 
has been used in any of the trials made. 

The bore of the gun does not appear to have been at all affected by the 
firing, as I supposed it would have been. 1 learn that it has been fired 
about fifty times, with charges of 14 and 20 lbs. powder; once with 35 
lbs. I can perceive no action of the shot on any part of it, nor any 



Rep. No. 479. 41 

change of shape produced by firing. It is smaller in the wake of the 
trunnion-band by about T % v of an. inch, than it is either at the muzzle or 
at the bottom of the bore. This, I think, was caused by the compression 
of the metal (however singular it may appear) at the time of putting on 
the band. No cutter would have left such a shape in boring, and the bore 
appears regular and true in every other respect. 

Part of the shot used in firing were covered with felt, and part of them 
without cover. There are three or four slight blemishes in the bore, but 
I do not consider them of any consequence. They appear to have been 
in the gun when first bored. 

As Captain Stockton was unable to be present at the time of inspection, 
a copy of this report will be sent to him. 

I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 

ALEX. S. WADSWORTH. 

Com. William M. Crane, 

Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance, fyc. 



No. 3. 



United States ship Princeton, 

New York, January 16, 1844. 

Sir : I have the honor to inform you that I yesterday proved the big 
gun with the following charges : 

1st charge 14 pounds powder. 

2d " 14 " " 

3d « 20 " " 

4th " 25 « " 

5th " 45 pounds powder, and 212^ lb. shot. 

The powder used was 276 yards proof, which makes the true proof 
applied to the gun A9 Y % pounds. 

As a gun,-it is quite perfect, and I do not think that any charge of 
powder can injure it; and as a piece of forged work, it is certainly the 
greatest achievement up to this time. It is safe in its carriage on board 
of the ship, and I hope within ten days to be with the ship at Wash- 
ington. 

Most respectfully, your obedient servant, 

R. F. STOCKTON. 

P. S. — The men who made it deserve their money. It is worth all 
the guns on board of any frigate. 



Note.— The large gun weighed 27,334 pounds. 



42 Rep. No. 479. 

No. 4. 

Statement of cost (as paid by the Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography ) 
of the first wrought-iron cannon made under the directions of Captain 
R. F. Stockton, United States navy. 

Paid requisition of Thomas Hayes, navy agent at Philadel- 
phia, dated 10th August, 1842 .... $3,600 00 

Paid amount of Hogg and Delamater's bill, approved by Cap- 
tain R. F. Stockton, for work done on wrought-iron can- 
non ....... 1,600 36 



i,200 36 



Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography, April 1,1844. 

W. M. CRANE. 



Statement of cost (as paid by the Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography ) 
of the second wrought-iron cannon made under the directions of Captain 
R. F. Stockton, United States navy. 

January 20th, 1844. — Paid requisition of Thomas Hayes to pay 
bill of Hogg and Delamater, approved by Captain R. F. 
Stockton, for wroijght-iron cannon - - - $ 9,914 95 

March 18, 1844. — Paid bill of Hogg and Delamater, approved 
by Captain R. F. Stockton, for labor, &c, on wrought-iron 
cannon ....... 1,573 27 



$11,488 22 



Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography, April 1, 1844. 

W. M. CRANE. 



Navy Department, May 8, 1844. 

Sir : Agreeably to your verbal request, I have the honor to transmit, 
herewith, the following papers, marked A, B, and C, viz : 
A. — Copy of authority from the President of the United States to the Sec- 
retary of the Navy, dated March 14, 1844, to construct another 
wrought-iron gun. 
B. — Copy of a letter, dated March 15, 1844, from the Secretary of the 
Navy ad interim to the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance and Hy- 
drography. 
C. — Copy of a letter from the chief of the said bureau to Captain R. F. 
Stockton, dated March 16, communicating the authority of the 
President. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. Y. MASON. 
Hon. Wm. Parmenter, 

Chairman Naval Committee, Ho. Reps. 



Rep. No 479. 43 

A 

Washington, March 14, 1844. 

Being entirely satisfied, from the report of the late court of inqui- 
ry, that no vestige of pretence remains to visit the slightest censure on 
the officers and crew of the Princeton, either collectively or individually, 
for the sad and melancholy accident which has occurred on board that 
ship ; and regarding the bursting of the gun as one of those incidents 
which have often before attended the use of cannon of every size and de- 
scription ; and being firmly impressed with the great importance of the 
Princeton as a ship of war, it has therefore seemed to me to be altogether 
proper to direct the construction of another gun of the size and dimen- 
sions of that lately destroyed. 

I have, therefore, thought proper to order that such a gun be wrought, 
under the direct supervision of Captain Stockton, as soon as may be ; and 
that the same be paid for out of any unexpended balance remaining of the 
appropriation for navy ordnance. 

JOHN TYLER. 

To the Secretary op the Navy. 



B. 

Navy Department, March 15, 1844. 

Sir : I transmit herewith a copy of an order from the President of the 
United States, directing that another wrought-iron gun be made, under 
the immediate supervision of Captain Stockton, and request you will take 
measures for carrying the order into effect. 

1 am, very respectfully, yours, 

L. WARRINGTON, 
Secretary of the Navy aoVmiterim. 
Commodore Wm. M. Crane, 

Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography. 



C. 

Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography, 

March 16, 1844. 

Sir: You have herewith, enclosed, copies of letters from the President 
of the United States and from the Secretary of the Navy, ordering to be 
constructed, under your immediate supervision, as soon as may be, another 
wrought-iron gun of the size and dimensions of that lately destroyed on 
board the " Princeton." You will be pleased to carry into effect this or- 
der, reporting to this bureau, from time to time, your progress. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. M. CRANE. 
Captain R. F. Stockton, 

U. S. Navy, Philadelphia. 



t 



\ 







■ I I i i I I".-'', i 






' 



I'hilc I. 



Fig. /. 




/■'/If 7. 



/■),/ I 




/.,i;/ ,,////, r,////r ,/////, {,'//// 



'///,. it .r/r .1'//,// //?//, i ,//r ?/// /// 
r/emA 



I'm , 






/•in 6 








V 



\ 



■ I 

Hi 



I'lulvlll. 






X 



N \ 









/ 



- / 



WW J.,1 ' ! I ! I l I M 1 I I 
/; — 



Jt,/»rfe»M<m »l '/« ,//,,/>■ /„„,/,»;,/ /«■ » /n,A, t»r/> S//M fnm Cnfll. St,„//„„.v 
w/v'w/if f/m> G/w. iiM 'i >/«>'?s> <?&/*>>">&<?? fh«fa "" "" ■»"'" /W ' y ' 



V/M/,//,f 

fawr/ its. /'" / .< : -' ■'«//"*' 26* M'i'J 






